{"id":75536,"date":"2009-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009"},"modified":"2015-02-28T11:36:12","modified_gmt":"2015-02-28T06:06:12","slug":"estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M)\n                                                                      -1-\n\n    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                   CHANDIGARH\n\n                              Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M)\n                              Date of decision: 28.07.2009.\n\nEstate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal and\nothers\n                                                    ....Petitioners\n\n                    Versus\n\nSurju\n                                                           ....Respondent\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA\n\nPresent: - Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate,\n           for the petitioners.\n\n                    *****\n<\/pre>\n
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)<\/p>\n
CMs No. 10764-65-CII of 2009<\/p>\n
          The applicants have moved this application to place on record<\/p>\n
the documents Annexure P-6 to P-11, on the ground that this Court vide<\/p>\n
order dated 17.3.2009 had directed the applicants to place these<\/p>\n
documents on record.\n<\/p>\n
          The application is accompanied by another application for<\/p>\n
exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-6 to P-11.<\/p>\n
          Order dated 17.3.2009 passed by this Court reads as under: –<\/p>\n
          “On request of counsel for the petitioners, adjourned to
\n          17.4.2009.”\n<\/p>\n
          The reading of the order would show, that the application is<\/p>\n
totally mis-conceived, as no such direction, as pleaded, was given by this<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
          Otherwise also, the application under Section 151 of the Code
\n Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M)
\n                                                                          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
of Civil Procedure, to place on record documents to challenge the order,<\/p>\n
passed by the trial Court, is not competent.\n<\/p>\n
            The applications are accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
CR No. 816 of 2009<\/p>\n
            The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court<\/p>\n
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order<\/p>\n
dated 7.4.2008, attached as Annexure P-5.\n<\/p>\n
            By way of impugned order, the applications moved by the<\/p>\n
decree-holder stand allowed.\n<\/p>\n
            The respondent-decree-holder moved two applications, one for<\/p>\n
initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners, and another to<\/p>\n
challenge the price demanded by the petitioners herein, for the plot<\/p>\n
allotted.\n<\/p>\n
            The respondent-decree-holder had filed a suit No. 221 of 2000<\/p>\n
for directing the defendant\/petitioners for allotting one kanal plot, as per<\/p>\n
HUDA policy of 1992 for allotment of plots to the oustees.<\/p>\n
            The suit was decreed on 10.12.2004, it was directed, that the<\/p>\n
petitioners herein should consider the case of the decree-holder for<\/p>\n
allotment of plot of 500 square yard under the oustees quota, within six<\/p>\n
months from the date of passing of the decree. In the decree, it was<\/p>\n
specifically mentioned, that the allotment was to be made as per the<\/p>\n
policy dated 18.3.1992.\n<\/p>\n
            The judgment-debtors i.e. petitioners failed to obey the<\/p>\n
direction in letter and spirit. It was the case of the decree-holder, that the<\/p>\n
lapse was intentional and mala fide.\n<\/p>\n
            The applications were opposed by the petitioners herein, by
\n Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M)
\n                                                                       -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
taking preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the<\/p>\n
applications, on the plea that the decree stood complied with, as the<\/p>\n
request of the decree-holder for allotment of plot was rejected. It was<\/p>\n
also the case set up, that the request of the decree -holder was considered<\/p>\n
on 8.6.2005 i.e. within six months, by placing the matter before the<\/p>\n
Oustees Claim Committee, and mini draw was conducted for allotment<\/p>\n
on 29.11.2005. In pursuance to the mini draw, respondent-decree-holder<\/p>\n
was allotted plot No. 944, Sector 19-II, HUDA, Kaithal, and in<\/p>\n
pursuance thereto the decree-holder deposited a sum of Rs. 1,11,000\/-<\/p>\n
(Rupees one lac eleven thousand only) under protest on 12.4.2006. The<\/p>\n
amount was considered to be inadequate, as it did not represent 10% of<\/p>\n
the price demanded for allotment i.e. the price payable for the plot of 500<\/p>\n
square yard on the date of allotment.\n<\/p>\n
          The learned Executing Court accepted the plea and found that<\/p>\n
the decree was not executed in letter and spirit, as offer was not made<\/p>\n
strictly in terms of the decree passed. It was specifically mentioned, in<\/p>\n
the decree, that the allotment was to be made as per the policy in<\/p>\n
existence in the year 1992. The learned Executing Court found, that the<\/p>\n
judgment of this Court in the case of Jit Singh Vs. State of Punjab,<\/p>\n
2002(3) PLR 115 was fully applicable to the facts of the case. The<\/p>\n
learned Executing Court granted one month’s time more, to the<\/p>\n
petitioners to execute the decree in letter and spirit. The Court, however,<\/p>\n
kept the option of initiating the contempt proceedings open.<\/p>\n
          The learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the<\/p>\n
impugned order, primarily on the ground, that as per the policy and<\/p>\n
advertisement issued in 1992, the respondent failed to deposit 10% of
\n Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M)
\n                                                                       -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
the price and he was, therefore, not entitled to allotment of plot.<\/p>\n
          This plea is totally mis-conceived. The petitioners were bound<\/p>\n
to execute the decree, which was passed on 10.12.2004. There was<\/p>\n
hardly any occasion for the decree-holder to have deposited 10% of the<\/p>\n
amount in the year 1992. The plea further deserves to be rejected, as in<\/p>\n
pursuance to the decree, the Oustees Committee found the decree-holder<\/p>\n
to be entitled to allotment of plot, and in fact, the plot was allotted to<\/p>\n
him. The dispute, therefore, was only with regard to price. The learned<\/p>\n
Executing Court was right in holding, that the price payable was to be as<\/p>\n
per 1992 policy.       The learned Executing Court in view of the<\/p>\n
advertisement issued in pursuance to the 1992 policy, was right in<\/p>\n
holding that the plot was to be allotted on advertised price and not at the<\/p>\n
price demanded by the petitioners, i.e. current price of the plot.<\/p>\n
          However, keeping in view the fact that the period allowed by<\/p>\n
the learned Executing Court for implementation of the decree has<\/p>\n
expired, the petitioners are given another one month’s time from receipt<\/p>\n
of copy of this judgment, to comply with the order.<\/p>\n
          Except for extension of time, I find no merit in this revision,<\/p>\n
which is ordered to dismissed, in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    (Vinod K. Sharma)
\n                                                         Judge
\nJuly 28, 2009
\nR.S.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 2009 Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 816 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.07.2009. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal and others ….Petitioners Versus Surju ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE […]<\/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-75536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nEstate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 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\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-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=\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-28T06:06:12+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-28T06:06:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":889,\"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\\\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-28T06:06:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 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":"Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 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\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-28T06:06:12+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-28T06:06:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009"},"wordCount":889,"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\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009","name":"Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-28T06:06:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/estate-officer-vs-surju-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Estate Officer vs Surju on 28 July, 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\/75536","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=75536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75536\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}