{"id":82441,"date":"2009-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-26T12:33:17","modified_gmt":"2015-11-26T07:03:17","slug":"shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 3 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 3 March, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Sanjiv Khanna<\/div>\n<pre>LPA NO.690\/2001                  Page No.1\n\n\n                                                     REPORTABLE\n\n*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+                        LPA NO. 690 OF 2001\n\n\n%                            Date of Decision : March 3, 2009.\n\n      SHRI G.R.CHAWLA &amp; OTHERS                     .... Appellants.\n                         Through Mr.          K.    Venkat Raman,\n                         Advocate.\n\n                              VERSUS\n\n      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &amp;\n      ANOTHER                          .... Respondents.<\/pre>\n<p>                        Through Ms. Anusuya Salwan,<br \/>\n                        Advocate.\n<\/p>\n<p>CORAM:\n<\/p>\n<p>HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE<br \/>\nHON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA<\/p>\n<p>1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be<br \/>\nallowed to see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n<p>2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported<br \/>\nin the Digest ?\n<\/p>\n<p>SANJIV KHANNA, J:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>1. The present intra Court Appeal under Clause X of the Letters<\/p>\n<p>    Patent has been filed by four employees (hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n<p>    as the appellants, for short) of the Delhi Development Authority<\/p>\n<p>    (hereinafter referred to as respondent, for short) against the<\/p>\n<p>    judgment dated 5th October, 2001 passed by the learned Single<\/p>\n<p>    Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1768\/88. By the impugned<br \/>\n LPA NO.690\/2001                      Page No.2<\/p>\n<p>   judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that the initial pay<\/p>\n<p>   fixation of the appellants shall be under Fundamental Rule 22-B<\/p>\n<p>   and thereafter their pay would be fixed under the normal Rules.<\/p>\n<p>2. The appellants were earlier working as Junior Engineers in Central<\/p>\n<p>   Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as CPWD, for<\/p>\n<p>   short). They applied through proper channel for appointment as<\/p>\n<p>   Junior Engineers in the respondent-DDA. After selection the<\/p>\n<p>   appellants     were   appointed   as    Junior   Engineers   with   the<\/p>\n<p>   respondent but were asked to give an undertaking that they shall<\/p>\n<p>   not claim benefit of past service in CPWD. The undertaking was<\/p>\n<p>   given by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. After some time, the appellants made a representation for fixation<\/p>\n<p>   of their pay under Fundamental Rule 22 by giving them benefit of<\/p>\n<p>   their past service. The representation was rejected and aggrieved,<\/p>\n<p>   the appellants along with some others had filed Writ Petition<\/p>\n<p>   (Civil) No. 1768\/1988 titled G.R. Chawla and others versus Delhi<\/p>\n<p>   Development Authority and another. In the impugned judgment,<\/p>\n<p>   the learned single Judge has observed that the principal issue that<\/p>\n<p>   arose for consideration was whether Fundamental Rule 22 or 22-B<\/p>\n<p>   was applicable to the facts of the present case. Relying upon the<\/p>\n<p>   undertakings given by the appellants and the fact that the<\/p>\n<p>   appellants were initially appointed on probation, it was held by the<\/p>\n<p>   learned Single Judge that Fundamental Rule 22 would not be<br \/>\n LPA NO.690\/2001                    Page No.3<\/p>\n<p>   applicable and provisions of Fundamental Rule 22-B would be<\/p>\n<p>   applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Two aspects which require adjudication in the present Appeal are<\/p>\n<p>   : (1) the effect of the undertakings given by the appellants (2)<\/p>\n<p>   Whether Fundamental Rule 22 or 22-B is applicable.<\/p>\n<p>5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties had<\/p>\n<p>   drawn our attention to Rule 22(I)(a)(2) and 22-B and submitted<\/p>\n<p>   that the second question involves interpretation of the said Rules.<\/p>\n<p>   Relevant portions of Rule 22(I)(a)(2) and Rule 22-B read as<\/p>\n<p>   under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;F.R.22(I) The initial pay of a Government<br \/>\n          servant who is appointed to a post on a time-scale<br \/>\n          of pay is regulated as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>   (a)    (1) x x x        x<br \/>\n          (2) When the appointment to the new post does<br \/>\n          not involve such assumption of duties and<br \/>\n          responsibilities of greater importance, he shall<br \/>\n          draw as initial pay, the stage of the time-scale<br \/>\n          which is equal to his pay in respect of the old post<br \/>\n          held by him on regular basis, or, if there is no<br \/>\n          such stage, the stage next above his pay in<br \/>\n          respect of the old post held by him on regular<br \/>\n          basis:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             Provided that where the minimum pay of the<br \/>\n          time-scale of the new post is higher than his pay<br \/>\n          in respect of the post held by him regularly, he<br \/>\n          shall draw the minimum as the initial pay:<br \/>\n             Provided further that in a case where pay is<br \/>\n          fixed at the same stage, he shall continue to draw<br \/>\n          that pay until such time as he would have received<br \/>\n          an increment in the time-scale of the old post, in<br \/>\n          cases where pay is fixed at the higher stage, he<br \/>\n          shall get his next increment on completion of the<br \/>\n          period when an increment is earned in the time-<br \/>\n          scale of the new post.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p> LPA NO.690\/2001                    Page No.4<\/p>\n<p>          On appointment on regular basis to such a new<br \/>\n          post, other than to an ex cadre post on<br \/>\n          deputation, the Government servant shall have the<br \/>\n          option, to be exercised within one month from the<br \/>\n          date of such appointment, for fixation of his pay in<br \/>\n          the new post with effect from the date of<br \/>\n          appointment to the new post or with effect from<br \/>\n          the date of increment in the old post.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;22-B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained<br \/>\n          in these Rules, the following provisions shall<br \/>\n          govern the pay of a Government servant who is<br \/>\n          appointed as a probationer in another service or<br \/>\n          cadre, and subsequently confirmed in that service<br \/>\n          or cadre-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>   (a)     During the period of probation, he shall draw pay<br \/>\n          at the minimum of the time-scale or at the<br \/>\n          probationary stages of the time scale of the<br \/>\n          service or post, as the case may be:\n<\/p>\n<p>             Provided that if the presumptive pay of the<br \/>\n          permanent post on which he holds a lien or would<br \/>\n          hold a lien had his lien not been suspended should<br \/>\n          at any time be greater than the pay fixed under<br \/>\n          this clause, he shall draw the presumptive pay of<br \/>\n          the permanent post;\n<\/p>\n<p>   (b)    On confirmation in the service or post after the<br \/>\n          expiry of the period of probation, the pay of the<br \/>\n          Government servant shall be fixed in the time-<br \/>\n          scale of the service or post in accordance with the<br \/>\n          provisions of Rule 22 or Rule 22-C, as the case<br \/>\n          may be:\n<\/p>\n<p>             Provided that the pay of Government servant<br \/>\n          shall not be so fixed under Rule 22 or Rule 22-C<br \/>\n          with reference to the pay that he would have<br \/>\n          drawn in the previous post which he was holding<br \/>\n          in a temporary capacity, but he shall continue to<br \/>\n          draw the pay in the time-scale of the service or<br \/>\n          post.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> LPA NO.690\/2001                   Page No.5<\/p>\n<p>6. Rule 22-B(1) begins with a non-obstante clause and applies to all<\/p>\n<p>   cases where a Government servant is appointed in another service<\/p>\n<p>   or cadre as a probationer. Under Rule 22-B(1)(a) during the<\/p>\n<p>   period of probation such officer is entitled to pay at the minimum<\/p>\n<p>   of the time scale or the probationary stage of the time scale of the<\/p>\n<p>   said post to which he is appointed. Proviso to Rule 22-B(1)(a)<\/p>\n<p>   gives pay protection during the probationary period, if the<\/p>\n<p>   probationer is holding a permanent post in the first service on<\/p>\n<p>   which he holds a lien or would have held the lien but for<\/p>\n<p>   suspension relatable to the second appointment. In such cases,<\/p>\n<p>   the probationer on appointment in the second service will be<\/p>\n<p>   entitled to presumptive pay equal to amount being paid to him in<\/p>\n<p>   his first service.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Rule 22-B(1)(b) applies after a probationer is confirmed. Upon<\/p>\n<p>   confirmation, the Government servant is entitled to same pay as<\/p>\n<p>   would be payable in accordance with Rule 22 or Rule 22-C<\/p>\n<p>   whichever is applicable. The question whether after confirmation<\/p>\n<p>   Rule 22-B or Rule 22 would apply, is answered by the language of<\/p>\n<p>   Rule 22-B(1)(b) itself as the said clause stipulates that the pay<\/p>\n<p>   scale of the appellants after confirmation will be fixed in terms of<\/p>\n<p>   Rule 22 or Rule 22 C. It has not been argued before us that Rule<\/p>\n<p>   22-C is applicable. Thus upon confirmation Rule 22 is applicable to<\/p>\n<p>   the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p> LPA NO.690\/2001                       Page No.6<\/p>\n<p>8. Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(2) quoted above is the relevant sub-<\/p>\n<p>   Clause which applies as duties and responsibilities of the<\/p>\n<p>   appellants in the respondent-DDA and CPWD are same. The said<\/p>\n<p>   sub-Clause     stipulates   that   the    Government   servant   after<\/p>\n<p>   confirmation will be entitled to draw initial pay at the stage of the<\/p>\n<p>   time scale which the Government servant was enjoying in the first<\/p>\n<p>   post held by him on regular basis and if there is no such stage,<\/p>\n<p>   the stage next above the pay in the first post held by him on<\/p>\n<p>   regular basis. The first proviso stipulates that the employee is<\/p>\n<p>   entitled to minimum pay scale in the new post, if it is higher than<\/p>\n<p>   the pay in the first post which was held by him. The first proviso is<\/p>\n<p>   not applicable in the present case. In view of the above, the<\/p>\n<p>   appellants on confirmation will be entitled to fixation of pay under<\/p>\n<p>   Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(2) read with other Fundamental Rules,<\/p>\n<p>   if applicable. The second question is accordingly answered in<\/p>\n<p>   favour of the appellants and it is held that on completion of the<\/p>\n<p>   probation period and on confirmation, the appellants will be<\/p>\n<p>   entitled to fixation of their pay in terms of Fundamental Rule<\/p>\n<p>   22(I)(a)(2).\n<\/p>\n<p>9. We do not think that the respondents can rely upon the<\/p>\n<p>   undertakings given by the appellants to deny them benefit of the<\/p>\n<p>   statutory rules. To rely upon the undertakings and not apply<\/p>\n<p>   Fundamental Rule 22 will be contrary to the statutory rules and<br \/>\n LPA NO.690\/2001                   Page No.7<\/p>\n<p>   therefore bad in law. Undertakings to the extent they are contrary<\/p>\n<p>   to the statutory Rules cannot be applied. It does appear that the<\/p>\n<p>   appellants in this case were compelled and forced to give the said<\/p>\n<p>   undertakings at the time of appointment by the respondents. It<\/p>\n<p>   cannot be said that the said undertakings were given out of free-<\/p>\n<p>   will and without force or coercion. Even if the appellants have<\/p>\n<p>   given the said undertakings, the respondent-DDA being a<\/p>\n<p>   statutory authority is bound by Fundamental Rules and cannot act<\/p>\n<p>   contrary to the Fundamental Rules or ignore the same. This will<\/p>\n<p>   be contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   The respondent themselves have ignored the undertakings and<\/p>\n<p>   followed the Fundamental Rules in other cases and given other<\/p>\n<p>   employees benefit of past service. We do not accept the<\/p>\n<p>   contention of the respondent that other cases were of old\/earlier<\/p>\n<p>   appointed employees and the administrative branch had treated<\/p>\n<p>   them differently. The facts of other cases and the case of the<\/p>\n<p>   appellants are identical. The undertakings and the relevant<\/p>\n<p>   Fundamental Rules applicable are the same. The question relates<\/p>\n<p>   to applicability of the Rules and in that context we find that no<\/p>\n<p>   distinction can be made between the case of the appellants and<\/p>\n<p>   other cases, wherein benefit of past service has been given.<\/p>\n<p>11.   Lastly, we find that the representations of the appellants after<\/p>\n<p>   filing of the writ petition were considered and thereafter referred<br \/>\n LPA NO.690\/2001                    Page No.8<\/p>\n<p>   to the Government of India. Government of India in their opinion<\/p>\n<p>   dated 6th December, 1993 has opined that resignations given by<\/p>\n<p>   the appellants herein to the CPWD before taking up employment<\/p>\n<p>   with the respondent-DDA were a technical formality. Therefore<\/p>\n<p>   during the probation period, the pay of the appellants will be fixed<\/p>\n<p>   under Rule 22-B and thereafter under the normal Rules. The<\/p>\n<p>   normal Rules refers to Rule 22, in view of Rule 22-B(1)(b). The<\/p>\n<p>   respondent has therefore misunderstood the opinion of the Union<\/p>\n<p>   of India. The first question is accordingly decided.<\/p>\n<p>12.   In view of the above findings, the Appeal is allowed. It is held<\/p>\n<p>   that the appellants&#8217; salary during the probation period will be fixed<\/p>\n<p>   in accordance with Rule 22-B and upon confirmation under Rule<\/p>\n<p>   22. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                               (SANJIV KHANNA)<br \/>\n                                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>                                           (AJIT PRAKASH SHAH)<br \/>\n                                                CHIEF JUSTICE<br \/>\n   MARCH 3, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>   P\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 3 March, 2009 Author: Sanjiv Khanna LPA NO.690\/2001 Page No.1 REPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA NO. 690 OF 2001 % Date of Decision : March 3, 2009. SHRI G.R.CHAWLA &amp; OTHERS &#8230;. [&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-82441","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>Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 3 March, 2009 - 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\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-26T07:03:17+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 3 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-26T07:03:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1828,\"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\\\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-26T07:03:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 3 March, 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":"Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 3 March, 2009 - 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\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-26T07:03:17+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 3 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-26T07:03:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009"},"wordCount":1828,"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\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009","name":"Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-26T07:03:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-g-r-chawla-others-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri G.R. Chawla &amp; Others vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 3 March, 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\/82441","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=82441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82441\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}