{"id":80933,"date":"2009-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009"},"modified":"2019-04-07T22:04:15","modified_gmt":"2019-04-07T16:34:15","slug":"sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                             1\n\n\n\n        In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                          R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998\n                          Date of decision: 27.8.2009\n\n\nSushila Devi\n                                                         ......Appellant\n\n                          Versus\n\n\nRopar Improvement Trust, Ropar and others\n\n                                                      .......Respondents\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:     Mr. R.L.Sharma,Advocate,\n             for the appellant.\n\n\n             None for the respondent.\n\n                   ****\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             Plaintiff Sushila Devi filed a suit for permanent injunction,<\/p>\n
which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Ropar<\/p>\n
vide judgment and decree dated          9.4.1996.   In appeal, the said<\/p>\n
judgment and decree were set aside by District Judge, Rupnagar<\/p>\n
vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.1998 and the suit of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was     dismissed with costs.      Hence, the present appeal by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
 R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
           Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
           “2.         The brief facts of the case are that Dr.Dharam<\/p>\n
           Pal husband of the plaintiff\/respondent No.1 was owner in<\/p>\n
           possession of the house in dispute; that he was also<\/p>\n
           owner of the land adjoining to the same; that Dr.Dharam<\/p>\n
           Pal gifted half portion of the said house and the adjoining<\/p>\n
           land in favour of the plaintiff during his life time. It is also<\/p>\n
           alleged that Dr.Dharam Pal died in March, 1991 and after<\/p>\n
           his death plaintiff inherited his share in the suit<\/p>\n
           land\/property being his widow and only legal heir, so she<\/p>\n
           is owner in possession of the suit property. It is further<\/p>\n
           alleged that there is boundary wall on the eastern<\/p>\n
           northern and southern sides upto the height of 4 \u00bd feet<\/p>\n
           with barbed wire fitted with iron angulars; that eucalyptus<\/p>\n
           and kikar trees were planted more than 21 years ago in<\/p>\n
           the property in suit by Dr.Dharam Pal; that there was an<\/p>\n
           acquisition of award given by the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
           Collector, Ropar on 1.5.1976 in respect of the land of<\/p>\n
           Dr.Dharam Pal; that no award was given in respect of the<\/p>\n
           structure in the acquired land; that the structure clause in<\/p>\n
           the award at page 14 is as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       “There are a number of structures standing in<\/p>\n
                       the scheme area. The Improvement Trust,
\n R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
                    Ropar has already been asked to get the<\/p>\n
                    estimates and plans prepared from some<\/p>\n
                    qualified trust engineering staff. The same<\/p>\n
                    are not as yet available, accordingly the<\/p>\n
                    structures shall be disposed of by a separate<\/p>\n
                    award as and when received from the<\/p>\n
                    Technical staff of the trust.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         It is also alleged that no award of the structure of the<\/p>\n
         plaintiff has been given; that Dr.Dharam Pal challenged<\/p>\n
         the award dated 1.5.1976 in the Hon’ble High Court<\/p>\n
         through Civil Writ Petition; that the trust had made<\/p>\n
         statement in that court as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    “It is stated by Mr.Kuldip Singh learned<\/p>\n
                    counsel for the respondents that the plots<\/p>\n
                    No.664, 665, 666 shall be allotted to the<\/p>\n
                    petitioner at the reserved price which shall be<\/p>\n
                    approximately Rs.50 sq. yards. It is further<\/p>\n
                    stated that the built up area of the petitioner<\/p>\n
                    has been adjusted in the scheme. In view of<\/p>\n
                    the aforesaid statements the petitioner does<\/p>\n
                    not press the petition. Consequently, it is<\/p>\n
                    dismissed with no order as to costs.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         It is further alleged that writ petition No.5933 of 1976 was<\/p>\n
         withdrawn on 12.5.1980; that at that time the Trust told
\n R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
         that plots No.660 to 666 are not falling in the area of house of<\/p>\n
         the plaintiff; that thereafter the Trust started causing threats to<\/p>\n
         demolish the structure of the house of the plaintiff; that a civil<\/p>\n
         suit was filed against defendant No.1 in the court of Senior<\/p>\n
         Sub Judge, Ropar and defendant No.1 Trust made<\/p>\n
         statement in the court that defendant will not take any<\/p>\n
         forcible action against the plaintiff in respect of the suit<\/p>\n
         property and legal action will be taken against the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
         so as the suit was withdrawn on 20.8.1993; that<\/p>\n
         defendant No.1 has violated the undertaking and<\/p>\n
         demolished part of eastern side boundary wall and part of<\/p>\n
         boundary wall of the northern side upto the plinth level on<\/p>\n
         11.10.1993 illegally and forcibly. It is further alleged that<\/p>\n
         defendant No.1 connived with defendant No.2 who has<\/p>\n
         cut 22 eucalyptus trees by engaging the labour of<\/p>\n
         defendant No.3 with promise to sell the same to<\/p>\n
         defendant No.3 on 5.11.1993; that the plaintiff did not<\/p>\n
         allow to remove those trees from the suit land and the<\/p>\n
         same are lying at the spot; that the defendants have no<\/p>\n
         right to cut and remove the standing trees from the suit<\/p>\n
         property; that the defendants were causing threats to<\/p>\n
         demolish the       structure        of the house of the plaintiff;<\/p>\n
         that   the   plaintiff   has   suffered      loss of Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n
         due    to    demolition        of      the    boundary    wall by<\/p>\n
         defendant No.1; that she has also suffered loss of
\n R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
         Rs.5,000\/- due to cutting of 22 trees from the suit property<\/p>\n
         illegally and forcibly and that the defendants were out to<\/p>\n
         dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property illegally and<\/p>\n
         forcibly. It is also alleged that she has no claimed any<\/p>\n
         compensation in respect of land under her house<\/p>\n
         measuring 5 kanals 17 marlas, nor defendant No.1 has<\/p>\n
         assessed any compensation in respect of the suit<\/p>\n
         property, as the same has not been acquired by the Land<\/p>\n
         Acquisition Collector.     On the aforesaid allegations, the<\/p>\n
         plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for permanent<\/p>\n
         injunction   restraining   them from interfering        in her<\/p>\n
         ownership with possession by demolishing any part of her<\/p>\n
         house and from removing 22 eucalyptus trees illegally<\/p>\n
         cut by defendant No.2 from the suit property.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         3.     On notice, defendant No.1\/appellant filed written<\/p>\n
         statement by taking preliminary objections that the<\/p>\n
         plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit; that the suit is<\/p>\n
         not maintainable in the present form and that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
         is estopped from filing the suit by her act and conduct. It<\/p>\n
         is alleged that the land of the plaintiff had been acquired<\/p>\n
         by the defendant Trust for development of the scheme<\/p>\n
         known as Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar; that husband of<\/p>\n
         plaintiff Dr.Dharam Pal had challenged the acquisition<\/p>\n
         proceedings by filing writ petition in the court and has
\n R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
         sought an injunction order for staying operation of the<\/p>\n
         award and not dispossessing her from the land in dispute<\/p>\n
         in the year 1980; that the said writ petition was dismissed<\/p>\n
         on 12.5.1980 by the Hon’ble High Court on the statement<\/p>\n
         of counsel for the defendant Trust that possession of<\/p>\n
         plots No.660, 661, 662 and 663 was to be given to the<\/p>\n
         defendants and plots No.664, 665, 666 had to be allotted<\/p>\n
         to the plaintiff on the reserve price by the defendant Trust<\/p>\n
         and the same would be adjusted in the Scheme. It is<\/p>\n
         further alleged that Dr.Dharam Pal was not in possession<\/p>\n
         of the entire land; that he was in possession of only<\/p>\n
         constructed house, after getting the site plan sanctioned<\/p>\n
         by the Municipal Committee, Ropar; that the remaining<\/p>\n
         portion was already in possession of defendant No.1 in<\/p>\n
         view of    acquisition   proceedings    done   by   it;   that<\/p>\n
         Dr.Dharam Pal had never gifted out any portion of the<\/p>\n
         said house or adjoining land in favour of the plaintiff; that<\/p>\n
         there was no boundary wall on the eastern, northern and<\/p>\n
         southern sides; that in fact defendant Trust is in<\/p>\n
         possession of the land which falls within plots No.666 to<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         668. It is also alleged that eucalyptus trees have already<\/p>\n
         been cut by the plaintiff without knowledge of the<\/p>\n
         defendant Trust, though the plaintiff had no concern with<\/p>\n
         the same. The defendant admitted that Dr.Dharam Pal
\n R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
         husband of the plaintiff had challenged the acquisition<\/p>\n
         award and counsel for defendant made statement and<\/p>\n
         writ petition of Dr.Dharam Pal was dismissed on<\/p>\n
         12.5.1980 as withdrawn. Defendant also admitted the<\/p>\n
         filing of civil suit by the plaintiff against defendant No.1<\/p>\n
         but the defendant never admitted that the plaintiff had<\/p>\n
         withdrawn the suit on 20.8.1993; that defendant No.1<\/p>\n
         never violated any undertaking given in the court; that plot<\/p>\n
         Nos. 660 to 666 out of which plots No.664 to 666 were to<\/p>\n
         be given to the plaintiff at the reserve price, have already<\/p>\n
         been demarcated but the plaintiff has not deposited the<\/p>\n
         amount of sale price of the plots which were given to her<\/p>\n
         as per undertaking given in the Hon’ble High Court and<\/p>\n
         without depositing the sale price, said plots cannot be<\/p>\n
         transferred or allotted in the name of the plaintiff; that the<\/p>\n
         defendant never caused any threat to the plaintiff nor<\/p>\n
         caused her any loss to her. It is also alleged that<\/p>\n
         defendant No.1 had suffered         a loss of more than<\/p>\n
         Rs.15,000\/- at the hands of the plaintiff who had cut and<\/p>\n
         removed the eucalyptus trees from the suit land which fell<\/p>\n
         between plot Nos. 660 to 664; that there is no question of<\/p>\n
         dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land as she is<\/p>\n
         neither the owner nor in possession of any portion of the<\/p>\n
         suit land. Other averments made in the plaint were
\n R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
         denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   Defendant\/respondent No.2 also filed separate<\/p>\n
         written statement by taking preliminary objections which<\/p>\n
         were taken by defendant No.1 she has denied ownership<\/p>\n
         with possession of the plaintiff over the suit property; that<\/p>\n
         there is no boundary wall at the spot and there is no<\/p>\n
         barbed wire; that no eucalyptus or kiker tree is present at<\/p>\n
         the spot; that the spot is simple land comprising of plots<\/p>\n
         situated in Scheme No.1 i.e. Giani Zail Singh Nagar. It<\/p>\n
         was admitted by him that the award was given by the<\/p>\n
         Land Acquisition Collector and that plots No.660 to 666<\/p>\n
         have been demarcated and plot No.660 has been allotted<\/p>\n
         to him. He also pleaded that this plot has been allotted<\/p>\n
         out of the oustee quota and he has made payment to the<\/p>\n
         Improvement Trust, who has delivered possession of the<\/p>\n
         same to him; that the plaintiff has no right to interfere with<\/p>\n
         peaceful possession of plot No.660 of defendant No.2<\/p>\n
         that the applications filed by the plaintiff for the<\/p>\n
         appointment of Local Commissioner, were dismissed by<\/p>\n
         the court of Senior Sub Judge, Ropar as the property was<\/p>\n
         already acquired. Other averments made in the plaint<\/p>\n
         were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the<\/p>\n
         suit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
\n R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
           framed by the trial Court:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “1.    Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the<\/p>\n
           house in dispute? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           2.     Whether defendants are illegally and forcibly<\/p>\n
           interfering with possession of the plaintiff over the house<\/p>\n
           in dispute? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           3.     Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the<\/p>\n
           present suit ? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           4.    Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present<\/p>\n
           form ? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           5.    Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present<\/p>\n
           suit by her act and conduct? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           6.    Relief.<\/p>\n
           The substantial question of law that arises in this case is<\/p>\n
“whether the finding of the learned District Judge is perverse ignoring<\/p>\n
relevant evidence on record?”\n<\/p>\n
           On the last many dates, no one had appeared on behalf<\/p>\n
of the respondents and hence, the arguments in this case of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant were heard.\n<\/p>\n
           The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction that<\/p>\n
the defendants be restrained from interfering in her possession by<\/p>\n
demolishing any part of the house in dispute. Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant has argued that the land of the plaintiff was acquired by<\/p>\n
the Improvement Trust and the constructed area was, however,
\n R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
exempted from acquisition. The compensation was paid with regard<\/p>\n
to 38 kanals 14 marlas of land. So far as land in dispute was<\/p>\n
concerned, the same was exempted from acquisition and no<\/p>\n
compensation was paid qua the same. The said fact was evident<\/p>\n
from the testimony of DW-2 Dharampal. Ex.DW-2\/C in this regard<\/p>\n
was the details of payment of compensation amount paid to the land<\/p>\n
owners. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the<\/p>\n
revenue record on the file, the suit property was described as Gair<\/p>\n
Mumkin Makan\/Bara.\n<\/p>\n
             As per the report of the Local Commissioner when he<\/p>\n
visited the spot, there was labour of 10-12 persons who were busy in<\/p>\n
cutting the eucalyptus trees at the spot. They took eucalyptus trees<\/p>\n
in a tractor in his presence. On disclosing of his identity by the Local<\/p>\n
Commissioner the said persons left the spot. The labour was also<\/p>\n
busy in demolishing the boundary wall. In the site plan attached with<\/p>\n
the report, the place from where the boundary wall had been freshly<\/p>\n
demolished has been shown. Thus, as per the report of the Local<\/p>\n
Commissioner, the house of the plaintiff was having a boundary wall.<\/p>\n
             Learned District Judge has ignored the report of the Local<\/p>\n
Commissioner as well as the testimony of DW-2 Dharampal and<\/p>\n
Ex.DW-2\/C. From Ex.DW-2\/C, it is evident that compensation qua<\/p>\n
38 kanals 14 marlas has been paid to Dr.Dharampal, husband of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.   Even in Annexure R-1 placed on record during the<\/p>\n
pendency of this appeal, it has been certified by the Executive
\n R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
Officer, Improvement Trust that Rs.1,90,647.91 paise has been<\/p>\n
accepted as compensation by Dr.Dharampal. The said certificate,<\/p>\n
however, incorrectly shows that the said compensation was qua 42<\/p>\n
kanals 14 marlas of land, whereas, as per Ex.DW-2\/C, the said<\/p>\n
amount of compensation was paid qua 38 kanals 14 marlas of land.<\/p>\n
There is nothing on record to suggest that the possession of the land<\/p>\n
in dispute was ever taken by the Improvement Trust in a suit for<\/p>\n
permanent injunction. The Court was only required to see whether<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land or not. Since the<\/p>\n
plaintiff had been successful in proving her possession over the<\/p>\n
property in dispute, she could not be dis-possessed from the suit<\/p>\n
property except in due course of law.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned District Judge had accepted the appeal and<\/p>\n
consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by ignoring relevant<\/p>\n
evidence on record. In the award (Ex.P-11), it is clearly mentioned<\/p>\n
that regarding the structure standing in the scheme area, a separate<\/p>\n
award would be passed as and when the estimate and plans<\/p>\n
prepared by the technical staff of the trust were received. No such<\/p>\n
award, having been passed with regard to the suit property, has,<\/p>\n
however, been placed on record. Hence, the substantial question of<\/p>\n
law arising in this appeal is answered accordingly.<\/p>\n
           Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of the learned District Judge are set aside and<\/p>\n
the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction is decreed. The
\n R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
defendants are restrained from dis-possessing the plaintiff from the<\/p>\n
suit land except in due course of law.\n<\/p>\n
           No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                             (SABINA)\n                                              JUDGE\nAugust     27, 2009\nanita\n <\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 2009 R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1478 of 1998 Date of decision: 27.8.2009 Sushila Devi ……Appellant Versus Ropar Improvement Trust, Ropar and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.L.Sharma,Advocate, […]<\/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-80933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 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\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-07T16:34:15+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-07T16:34:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2411,\"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\\\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-07T16:34:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 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":"Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 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\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-07T16:34:15+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-07T16:34:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009"},"wordCount":2411,"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\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009","name":"Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-07T16:34:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushila-devi-vs-ropar-improvement-trust-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sushila Devi vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 26 August, 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\/80933","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=80933"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80933\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}