{"id":68416,"date":"2009-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-07T03:58:21","modified_gmt":"2017-09-06T22:28:21","slug":"kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 2009<\/div>\n
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998                               :{ 1 }:\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                    DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 21, 2009\n\n             Kulwant Singh through his L.Rs\n\n                                                             .....Petitioners\n\n                                         VERSUS\n\n             State of Punjab and another\n\n                                                              ....Respondents\n\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?\n2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\n\n\nPresent:     Mr. M. L. Sarin, Sr.Advocate with\n             Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate,\n             for the petitioners.\n             (in C.W.P. No.3462 of 1998)\n\n             Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate,\n             for the petitioners.\n             (in Civil Writ Petition Nos.1433 and 1455 of 2008)\n\n             Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab,\n             for the State.\n                              ****\n<\/pre>\n
RANJIT SINGH, J.(ORAL)<\/p>\n
             This order will dispose of three writ petition bearing<\/p>\n
Nos.3462 of 1998 (Kulwant Singh through his L.Rs Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Punjab and another), 1433 of 2008 (Anokh Singh and others Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Punjab and others) and 1455 of 2008 (Surinder Singh<\/p>\n
and others Vs. State of Punjab and others). The facts are being<\/p>\n
taken from Civil Writ Petition No.3462 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998                      :{ 2 }:\n<\/p>\n
             Gurnam Singh, father of the petitioner Kulwant Singh,<\/p>\n
was allotted land in Village Sheikhe Pind alongwith other 116<\/p>\n
allottees in Sufi Pind. After the death of Gurnam Singh, the petitioner,<\/p>\n
being his son alongwith his brothers and sisters, had inherited the<\/p>\n
rights in the property left by Gurnam Singh. He has accordingly filed<\/p>\n
this writ petition, to seek protection of his right in the property in<\/p>\n
question.\n<\/p>\n
             This was an evacuee land and was initially allotted by the<\/p>\n
Rehabilitation Authority to these persons by imposing a cut of 18-<\/p>\n
3\/4%. The cut was increased to 50% from that of 18-3\/4% in the year<\/p>\n
1952 and the proposal was accepted. This cut was imposed on all<\/p>\n
117 allottees, including the father of the petitioner. The predecessor<\/p>\n
in interest of the petitioner alongwith others filed Civil Writ Petitions<\/p>\n
Nos.2671-2690 of 1965 in this Court, challenging the cancellation of<\/p>\n
the area allotted to them and asking for enhanced price at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.2200\/- per standard acre. Only 20 allottees out of 117, which<\/p>\n
included the father of the petitioner, had not accepted this cut and did<\/p>\n
not deposit the amount. They had, thus, filed these writ petitions in<\/p>\n
the year 1965, challenging the cancellation of the area allotted.<\/p>\n
              These writ petitions were dismissed, which order was<\/p>\n
impugned by filing Letters Patent Appeals. The same were also<\/p>\n
dismissed.     The matter was then taken to Supreme Court. The<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the appeals. The Supreme<\/p>\n
Court rather approved the view taken by the High Court while<\/p>\n
dismissing the writ petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals.<\/p>\n
              While dismissing the appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
however, observed that there is no justification for affording any
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998                      :{ 3 }:\n<\/p>\n
differential treatment to those 20 allottees, particularly when, all the<\/p>\n
117 allottees stood at par so far as the application of the decision<\/p>\n
contained in order 3.2.1952 is concerned. Yet, the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court went on to record an observation of significance, reading “it is<\/p>\n
not known if under the changed circumstances, the same benefit is<\/p>\n
available to be extended to the appellant (now petitioner), without<\/p>\n
permitting him\/them to pay the extra premium at present”. It was also<\/p>\n
noticed that more than 30 years have passed and with this passage<\/p>\n
of time, the changed situation must have come to prevail.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, Hon’ble Supreme Court seems to have left liberty with<\/p>\n
authorities to still consider the claim of the petitioners by observing<\/p>\n
that dismissal of appeal should not preclude the respondent<\/p>\n
authorities from entertaining the offer by the appellant if made to pay<\/p>\n
extra premium or any further time with a view to obtain a lawful<\/p>\n
settlement of the entire property without cut on the basis of the initial<\/p>\n
allotment.\n<\/p>\n
     It is perhaps this part of the order which had given a new ray of<\/p>\n
hope and a straw to the petitioners to swim. The petitioner addressed<\/p>\n
representation to Chief Minister, which was dealt with by the then<\/p>\n
Revenue Minister. He made a noting dated 2.2.1996, observing that<\/p>\n
request is genuine and for taking action under the Rules. This came<\/p>\n
as new leaf of life to the petitioners. The case was then examined.<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 took a decision to charge enhanced price at the<\/p>\n
rate of 10% per year. This order\/decision of respondent No.1-<\/p>\n
Financial Commissioner (Revenue) is annexed with the petition as<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1. It was decided to charge Rs.71,500\/- per standard<\/p>\n
acre from these allottees and statedly was conveyed to Deputy
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998                      :{ 4 }:\n<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Jalandhar, vide letter dated 25.7.1996 (Annexure P2).<\/p>\n
             In the meanwhile, one Ashok Kumar filed Civil Writ<\/p>\n
Petition No.7296 of 1996, seeking allotment of sub-urban land as<\/p>\n
was the claim being made by the petitioners. This writ petition was<\/p>\n
admitted on 9.9.1999. Since the issue of allotment of sub-urban land<\/p>\n
was in issue in this writ petition, Government decided to keep the<\/p>\n
allotment in abeyance till the matter was decided by this Court. The<\/p>\n
decision of the Government to hold the allotment in abeyance was<\/p>\n
communicated     to   Deputy    Commissioner,     Jalandhar,       through<\/p>\n
Annexure P-3. This gave a cause to the petitioners, who were<\/p>\n
awaiting allotment. The petitioners, thus, challenged this order by<\/p>\n
filing the present writ petitions. Plea is that decision to        hold the<\/p>\n
allotment in abeyance on the basis of challenge made in Civil Writ<\/p>\n
Petition No.7296 of 1996 would not have any effect on the rights of<\/p>\n
the petitioners for the allotment. These writ petitions were also<\/p>\n
admitted to be heard with Civil Writ Petition No.6168 of 1995 filed by<\/p>\n
others and Ashok Kumar.\n<\/p>\n
           Reply is filed. The stand of the respondents is that the<\/p>\n
land, which is sub-urban, can not be allotted to the petitioner as this<\/p>\n
land is required to be put to auction in terms of the rules framed in<\/p>\n
the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976.               This<\/p>\n
apart, the State counsel would refer to the order passed in Civil Writ<\/p>\n
Petition Nos.6168 of 1995, 7296 of 1996 and 6169 of 1995 to<\/p>\n
highlight that the prayer of the petitioners in these writ petitions for<\/p>\n
allotment of sub-urban land has been declined by this Court. By<\/p>\n
referring to the prayer made in these petitions, it is urged that the<\/p>\n
instructions concerning disposing of sub-urban land by way of
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998                       :{ 5 }:\n<\/p>\n
auction have been upheld by this Court by dismissing the writ petition<\/p>\n
filed by Ashok Kumar and others on 6.11.2006 The State counsel<\/p>\n
would, thus, plead that there is no merit in the instant writ petitions<\/p>\n
containing identical prayer and the same, thus, would deserve to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             During the course of arguments, the State counsel has<\/p>\n
placed before me the file containing original notings, on the basis of<\/p>\n
which the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (P-1) was<\/p>\n
ordered to be held in abeyance. The challenge is made to this order<\/p>\n
(P-3). This is a communication from Financial Commissioner<\/p>\n
(Revenue) to Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar. In fact, through this<\/p>\n
order, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) has informed the Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner,      Jalandhar,   that   decision   to   allot   land   was<\/p>\n
superseded and not held in abeyance as made out by the<\/p>\n
petitioners. This communication is annexed by the petitioners.<\/p>\n
Learned State counsel would refer to the original notings which also<\/p>\n
show that the decision was taken by the Government to cancel<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1. This part of the noting in Punjabi is read over and<\/p>\n
perused when the file was placed before the Court. Counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner says that this noting was not brought to the notice of the<\/p>\n
petitioners and they are, thus, taken by surprise.<\/p>\n
             I have heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr.M.L.Sarin has made a prayer, more in the nature of a<\/p>\n
mercy to say that the petitioners (in all the three writ petitions), who<\/p>\n
are the allottees of evacuee property and displaced persons would<\/p>\n
need a sympathetic consideration of these cases. Submission,<\/p>\n
primarily    is that the decision taken by Financial Commissioner,
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998                      :{ 6 }:\n<\/p>\n
Revenue, was held in abeyance and so would need to be<\/p>\n
implemented with directions to the    Government to allot the land at<\/p>\n
the enhanced price as ordered by the then Financial Commissioner<\/p>\n
(Revenue). The respondents       ofcourse would stoutly oppose the<\/p>\n
prayer by pointing out that the decision which was cancelled would<\/p>\n
not call for implementation and that the land, which is sub-urban is<\/p>\n
now required to be put to auction and hence, can not be allotted.<\/p>\n
           The petitioners herein are victim of their own unwise<\/p>\n
decision to challenge the increase in cut and, thus, have put<\/p>\n
themselves to a great loss. They now plead for mercy to seek<\/p>\n
equivalence with those who were wise enough to deposit the amount<\/p>\n
and accept the offer made by accepting allotment.<\/p>\n
           It clearly comes out that the allotment, if any in favour of<\/p>\n
the petitioner, was cancelled. This cancellation of allotment was<\/p>\n
challenged by the petitioner and others by filing various Writ Petitions<\/p>\n
No.2671-2690 of 1965. The petitioners remained unsuccessful. They<\/p>\n
took the matter to Supreme Court but the cancellation was up-held.<\/p>\n
The petitioners, thus, can not rely upon the allotment which was<\/p>\n
made in their favour and was cancelled, which was up-held upto<\/p>\n
Supreme Court. The petitioners do not have any right in this regard.<\/p>\n
They are taking support from the observation made by Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court which lead to passing of an order by Financial<\/p>\n
Commissioner (Revenue). No doubt, the Financial Commissioner,<\/p>\n
Revenue, did make an order for charging some enhanced rate but it<\/p>\n
is now revealed that this order has been cancelled. On the basis of<\/p>\n
this order, no communication was made to the petitioners. In fact,<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1 appears to be a noting and it is not claimed that any
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998                     :{ 7 }:\n<\/p>\n
communication has followed thereafter to the petitioners. It is not<\/p>\n
made out, how this came in the hands of the petitioners. This was<\/p>\n
subsequently cancelled. Where would be the need to communicate<\/p>\n
cancellation, when no order of allotment was sent to the petitioners. I<\/p>\n
need not go into the right of the petitioners to receive communication<\/p>\n
about decision taken in the form of notings. No offer on the basis of<\/p>\n
order, Annexure P-1, was ever made to the petitioners. Reliance on<\/p>\n
Annexure P-2, which was a decision taken by the Government and<\/p>\n
communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, would also<\/p>\n
not help as concededly, this was never addressed to the petitioners.<\/p>\n
It now transpires that decision, Annexure P-1, of the Financial<\/p>\n
Commissioner, apparently was not held in abeyance as made out<\/p>\n
but was superseded as per showing by the petitioners. The noting<\/p>\n
now placed before the Court would not leave any doubt in this regard<\/p>\n
and show that decision then was taken to cancel the decision taken<\/p>\n
by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue. Internal notings are not to<\/p>\n
be communicated as per settled position of law. No offer was made<\/p>\n
to the petitioner on the basis of a decision, Annexure P-1.<\/p>\n
Concededly, order Annexure P-1, even if passed by Financial<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Revenue, was not communicated to the petitioner for<\/p>\n
implementation. Accordingly, no right would accrue in favour of the<\/p>\n
petitioner, for which direction need to be issued, as prayed.<\/p>\n
           It may not be possible to issue direction as sought by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. The allotment in favour of the petitioner stood cancelled<\/p>\n
long long ago. They had raised challenge against this cancellation<\/p>\n
but remained unsuccessful upto Hon’ble Supreme Court. The matter<\/p>\n
can not now again be allowed to be re-opened. It will not be within
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998                      :{ 8 }:\n<\/p>\n
the scope of writ Court       to re-open this matter and issue fresh<\/p>\n
direction either for allotment or for accepting the enhanced amount<\/p>\n
as determined by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue. The internal<\/p>\n
decision, which was taken but not communicated, would not create<\/p>\n
any right in favour of the petitioner, which could be enforced through<\/p>\n
writ Court.\n<\/p>\n
              While dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners,<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed:-\n<\/p>\n
              “In dealing with a matter of this type that broad<\/p>\n
              perspective of the scheme has to be kept in view. People<\/p>\n
              who were uprooted from Pakistan and became displaced<\/p>\n
              persons were to be compensated on the footing that they<\/p>\n
              had left behind lands in Pakistan and lands of people who<\/p>\n
              had left India for Pakistan had become evacuee property<\/p>\n
              and the compensation to the displaced persons could be<\/p>\n
              by settlement of such lands. In a case of this type no one<\/p>\n
              can look for undue enrichment. Once it is held as a fact<\/p>\n
              that the properties are semi-urban and admittedly this had<\/p>\n
              not been kept in view when original allotment had been<\/p>\n
              made, it should always be possible to make an<\/p>\n
              adjustment. Such an adjustment is just and fair. It is<\/p>\n
              appropriate to take note of a very significant feature,<\/p>\n
              namely, there were 117 allottees in these villages which<\/p>\n
              were declared sub-urban and 97 of these allottees paid<\/p>\n
              the extra premium, and were allowed to acquire the entire<\/p>\n
              land given to them. Twenty allottees including the<\/p>\n
              appellant took steps to challenge the decision regarding
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998                         :{ 9 }:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               levy of premium as also cut in the allotments. There is no<\/p>\n
               justification as to why any differential treatment should be<\/p>\n
               shown to these twenty allottees particularly when all the<\/p>\n
               117 allottees stood at par so far as the application of the<\/p>\n
               decision contained in the order dated February 3, 1952 is<\/p>\n
               concerned. We do not know if under the changed<\/p>\n
               circumstances the same benefit is available to be<\/p>\n
               extended to the appellant now, viz., permitting him to pay<\/p>\n
               the extra premium at present. More than 30 years have<\/p>\n
               passed and with the passage of such a length of time<\/p>\n
               changed situations must have come to prevail. We see no<\/p>\n
               justification to accept the appeal and allow the benefit<\/p>\n
               claimed by the appellant. But our dismissal of the appeal<\/p>\n
               should not preclude the respondent authorities from<\/p>\n
               entertaining the offer by the appellant, if made, to pay the<\/p>\n
               extra premium and\/or any further demand with a view to<\/p>\n
               obtaining a lawful settlement of the entire property without<\/p>\n
               cut on the basis of the initial allotment. We make no order<\/p>\n
               for costs in this appeal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
               After observing that displaced persons are to be<\/p>\n
compensated, it is noticed that the fact that the properties allotted<\/p>\n
were semi-urban was not kept in view. Accordingly, the Court has<\/p>\n
advocated for seeing the possibility of adjustment, which should be<\/p>\n
just and fair. Still, the Court declined to extend the benefit of paying<\/p>\n
extra premium as prayed. Hon’ble Supreme Court still did not<\/p>\n
preclude the authorities from entertaining the offer from the<\/p>\n
petitioners.     Though the petitioners may not have right to seek
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998                      :{ 10 }:<\/p>\n
directions as prayed but still it would be open for the respondents to<\/p>\n
consider if they so wish, to make any reasonable just and fair offer.<\/p>\n
One such suggestion, which was made by the Court during the<\/p>\n
course of hearing was to offer this land to the petitioners at the price<\/p>\n
determined by way of open auction. This was, however, not<\/p>\n
acceptable to the petitioners. Respondents, if still want to show any<\/p>\n
sympathetic consideration, may do so. The respondent-Government<\/p>\n
would be at liberty to take any appropriate action in accordance with<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n
           The writ petitions are, however, dismissed. No order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
January 21,2009                           ( RANJIT SINGH )\nkhurmi                                         JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 2009 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 1998 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 21, 2009 Kulwant Singh through his L.Rs …..Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another […]<\/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-68416","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 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\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-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=\"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-06T22:28:21+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-06T22:28:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2462,\"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\\\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-06T22:28:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 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":"Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 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\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-06T22:28:21+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-06T22:28:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009"},"wordCount":2462,"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\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009","name":"Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-06T22:28:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulwant-singh-through-his-l-rs-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kulwant Singh Through His L.Rs vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 January, 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\/68416","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=68416"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68416\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68416"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68416"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68416"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}