{"id":69382,"date":"2002-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002"},"modified":"2016-03-28T20:55:04","modified_gmt":"2016-03-28T15:25:04","slug":"delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 311, 2002 (2) ARBLR 176 Delhi, 97 (2002) DLT 902<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D Bhandari<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D Bhandari, V Sen<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Dalveer Bhandari, J.<\/p>\n<p> 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge dated 11th March, 1981 whereby<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge had dismissed the Objections to<br \/>\nthe award filed by the DDA and made the award dated 3rd<br \/>\nMay, 1991 a rule of the Court and directed that the<br \/>\ndecree in terms of the award be passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Delhi<br \/>\nDevelopment Authority has filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nrestricted his challenge to the findings on<br \/>\ncounter-claims 5, 6 and 7 of the arbitrator which were<br \/>\nupheld by the Single Judge. According to the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant the arbitrator was in error in<br \/>\nrejecting the counter-claims of the DDA and learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge was in error in upholding the Award.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Counter-claim No. 5 is for Rs. 1.50 lakhs for the<br \/>\nquantity of the material found short during the<br \/>\ntechnical examination of the work. The learned<br \/>\narbitrator, in a detailed speaking Award, has mentioned<br \/>\nthat work was rescinded in December 1981 and<br \/>\nsubsequently the balance work got executed by some other<br \/>\nagency. Thereafter, as per report and evidence placed<br \/>\nbefore him the work was inspected by a technical<br \/>\nexaminer in 1982 and the report of the defects were sent<br \/>\nby the Chief Technical Examiner in 1982. In the same<br \/>\nAward the leaned arbitrator has mentioned that the<br \/>\nrespondent completed the work in December, 1981 and the<br \/>\ninspection had taken place admittedly in August, 1982<br \/>\nthen the respondents cannot be accused of carrying out<br \/>\nthe work below specification. The arbitrator has<br \/>\nobserved that the case of the claimant is that the work<br \/>\nwas illegally and arbitrarily rescinded by the<br \/>\nrespondents in December, 1981 and subsequently the<br \/>\nbalance &#8211; work got executed through another agency namely<br \/>\nShri R.S. Rana. Thereafter, reportedly, the work was<br \/>\ninspected by the Technical Examiner in August, 1982 and<br \/>\nthe report of the findings was sent by CTE to the Chief<br \/>\nProject Engineer on 4.12.1982. In this report the name<br \/>\nof contractor is indicated as Shri R.S. Rana, i.e. the<br \/>\nagency who executed the balance work after his contract<br \/>\nhad been rescinded. He was neither asked to be present<br \/>\nat the time of inspection nor had any intimation of<br \/>\nexamination having been conducted. In fact, the report<br \/>\nof the finding of the Technical Examiner was never<br \/>\nreceived by him. It is only on 16.5.1985 that he was<br \/>\ntold that the work was found to be below specification<br \/>\nand was asked to accept the payment at reduced rates.<br \/>\nThe findings of the learned arbitrator regarding claim<br \/>\nNo. 5 has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. We<br \/>\nsee no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at<br \/>\nby the arbitrator and upheld by the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Counter-claim No. 6 is for Rs. 1,32,939\/- towards<br \/>\nbalance work which was executed at the risk and costs of<br \/>\nthe claimant through contractor by another agency. The<br \/>\nlearned Arbitrator has given detailed reasons regarding<br \/>\nCounter-claim No. 6. He has mentioned that the<br \/>\nCounter-claim is inter-linked with additional claim No. 2<br \/>\nof the claimant which has been discussed along with<br \/>\nclaim No. 2. According to the findings of the arbitrator<br \/>\nthe action of the department in rescinding the contract<br \/>\nis wrong and unjustified. The plea of the respondents<br \/>\nthat the work was rescinded as the progress was slow and<br \/>\nthe quality of work was poor, as emerged from the check<br \/>\nmade by the Technical Examiner, has to legs to stand as<br \/>\nthe Technical Examiner checked the work in August, 1982<br \/>\nwhen the work had already been rescinded several months<br \/>\nago i.e. in December, 1981. This finding of the<br \/>\nlearned arbitrator has been upheld by the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge. We see no justification in interfering with the<br \/>\nfinding of the learned arbitrator as approved by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Counter Claim No. 7 pertains to the amount of<br \/>\nRs. 20,628\/- towards deduction in rates on account of<br \/>\noversize stone aggregate. The learned arbitrator gave<br \/>\nthe same reasons that the work was rescinded in December,<br \/>\n1981 and inspection was carried out in August, 1982.<br \/>\nDuring this period another agency was directed to<br \/>\ncompleted the work. Therefore, for any sub-standard work<br \/>\nthe respondents cannot be held responsible. The<br \/>\narbitrator has taken into account the entire evidence<br \/>\nand held that claim of the DDA was not justified and<br \/>\nrejected the same. The learned Single Judge upheld the<br \/>\nfindings of the arbitrator. We see no reason to<br \/>\ninterfere.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our<br \/>\nattention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/662824\/\">Rajasthan State Mines &amp; Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern<br \/>\nEngineering Enterprises and Anr.,<\/a> . The learned counsel has particularly drawn<br \/>\nour attention to paragraph 44 in which the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nJudges held that to find out whether the arbitrator has<br \/>\ntravelled beyond his jurisdiction, it would be necessary<br \/>\nto consider the agreement between the parties containing<br \/>\nthe arbitration clause. Arbitrator acting beyond his<br \/>\njurisdiction &#8211; is different from the error apparent on<br \/>\nthe face of the award. In order to determine whether<br \/>\nthe arbitrator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction<br \/>\nwhat really has to be seen is whether the claimant could<br \/>\nraise a particular claim before the Arbitrator. if<br \/>\nthere is a specific term in the contract or the law<br \/>\nwhich does not permit or give the arbitrator the power<br \/>\nto decide the dispute raised by the claimant or there is<br \/>\na specific bar in the contract to raise the particular<br \/>\nclaim then the award passed by the arbitrator in respect<br \/>\nthereof would be in excess of jurisdiction. There is no<br \/>\nquarrel with this proposition but this judgment has no<br \/>\napplication as far as the facts of this case are<br \/>\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. The learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent has placed reliance on <a href=\"\/doc\/1310275\/\">State of Rajasthan v.<br \/>\nPuri Construction Co. Ltd. and Anr.,<\/a> . He has particularly drawn our attention to<br \/>\nparagraph 25 of the judgment in which their Lordships<br \/>\nhave observed that the Arbitrator is the final arbiter<br \/>\nfor the dispute between the parties and it is not open<br \/>\nto challenge the award on the ground that he arbitrator<br \/>\nhas drawn his own conclusion or has failed to appreciate<br \/>\nthe facts.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. In another leading case <a href=\"\/doc\/588099\/\">Sudarsan Trading<br \/>\nCo. v. Government of Kerala and Anr.,<\/a> , the Court held that there is a distinction between<br \/>\ndisputes as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and<br \/>\nthe disputes as to in what way that jurisdiction should<br \/>\nbe exercised. There may be a conflict as to the power of<br \/>\nthe arbitrator to grant a particular remedy. One has to<br \/>\ndetermine the distinction between an error within the<br \/>\njurisdiction and an error in excess of the jurisdiction.<br \/>\nCourt cannot substitute its own evaluation of the<br \/>\nconclusion of law or fact to come to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between<br \/>\nthe parties. The Court further observed that if on a<br \/>\nview taken of a contract, the decision of the arbitrator<br \/>\non certain amounts awarded is a possible view though<br \/>\nperhaps not the only correct view, the award cannot be<br \/>\nexamined by the Court. The Court cannot examine the<br \/>\nreasonableness of the reasons where the reasons have<br \/>\nbeen given by eh arbitrator in making the award. If<br \/>\nthe parties have selected their own forum, the deciding<br \/>\nforum must be conceded the power of appraisement of<br \/>\nevidence. The arbitrator is the sole judge of the<br \/>\nquality as well as the quantity of evidence and it will<br \/>\nnot be for the court to take upon itself the task of<br \/>\nbeing a judge on the evidence before the arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. In this case their Lordships have also examined<br \/>\nthe earlier case of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/799168\/\">Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar<br \/>\nand Anr.,<\/a> 1987 SCC (4) 497. In this case, their<br \/>\nLordships observed that appraisement of evidence by the<br \/>\narbitrator is ordinarily never a matter which the Court<br \/>\nquestions and considers. It may be possible that on the<br \/>\nsame evidence the Court may arrive at a different<br \/>\nconclusion than the one arrived at by the arbitrator but<br \/>\nthat by itself is no ground for setting aside the<br \/>\naward. It has been held in the said decision that it is<br \/>\ndifficult to give an exact definition of the work<br \/>\n&#8216;reasonable reason&#8217;. It varies in its conclusions<br \/>\naccording to the idiosyncrasies of the individual and<br \/>\nthe time and circumstances in which he thinks. IN cases<br \/>\nnot covered by authority, the verdict of a jury or the<br \/>\ndecision of a judge sitting as a jury usually determines<br \/>\nwhat is &#8216;reasonable&#8217; in each particular case. The word<br \/>\nreasonable has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable<br \/>\nin regard to those circumstances of which the actor,<br \/>\ncalled on to act reasonably knows or ought to know. An<br \/>\narbitrator acting as a judge has to exercise a<br \/>\ndiscretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy,<br \/>\ndisciplined by system and subordinated to the primordial<br \/>\nnecessity of order in the social life. Therefore, where<br \/>\nreasons germane and relevant of the arbitrator to hold in the manner he did, have been indicated, it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that the reasons are unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. By the order dated 17th March, 1999 the<br \/>\nappellants were directed to deposit the decretal amount<br \/>\nwhich has been deposited in the Court. The respondent<br \/>\nwold be at liberty to withdraw the same.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. A well reasoned award has been upheld by the<br \/>\nSingle Judge. In our considered opinion no interference<br \/>\nis called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is<br \/>\ndismissed. The parties are left to bear their own<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 311, 2002 (2) ARBLR 176 Delhi, 97 (2002) DLT 902 Author: D Bhandari Bench: D Bhandari, V Sen JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge [&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-69382","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>Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - 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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-28T15:25:04+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\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-28T15:25:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1596,\"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\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002\",\"name\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-28T15:25:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - 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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-28T15:25:04+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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-28T15:25:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002"},"wordCount":1596,"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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002","name":"Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-28T15:25:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-sahdev-brothers-and-anr-on-26-february-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Development Authority vs Sahdev Brothers And Anr. on 26 February, 2002"}]},{"@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\/69382","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=69382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}