{"id":87688,"date":"2010-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-07T06:37:12","modified_gmt":"2015-05-07T01:07:12","slug":"haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Haridwar Development &#8230; vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Haridwar Development &#8230; vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R.V. Raveendran, K.S. Radhakrishnan<\/div>\n<pre>                            HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n                                    v.\n                            RAGHUBIR SINGH\n                   (Civil Appeal No. 1150-1167 of 2010)\n                             JANUARY 29, 2010\n                [R.V. Raveendran and K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.]\n                              2010 (2) SCR 201\n\n    The Order of the Court was delivered by\n\n                                     ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>    R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2. The first batch of appeals is filed by the Haridwar Development<br \/>\nAuthority (`the Authority&#8217;, for short), the beneficiary of an acquisition. The<br \/>\nconnected appeals are filed by the claimants-landowners whose lands<br \/>\nmeasuring 38.6.8 Bighas (8,45,174 sq.ft.) in village Jwalapur, Tehsil and<br \/>\nDistrict Haridwar, were acquired for planned development of a housing<br \/>\ncolony, under preliminary notification dated 7.12.1991 and final notification<br \/>\ndated 16.5.1992. As the ranks of parties in the appeals and counter-appeals<br \/>\nvary, the appellant in the first batch (who is the second respondent in other<br \/>\nappeals) will be referred to as the &#8220;Authority&#8221;. The respondents in the first<br \/>\nbatch (who are the appellants in the other appeals) are referred to as the<br \/>\n&#8220;claimants&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award dated 9.5.1994. He<br \/>\ndivided the acquired lands into three belts and awarded compensation at the<br \/>\nrate of Rs.26.25 per sq.ft. for the lands falling in the first belt, Rs.17.50 per<br \/>\nsq.ft. for lands falling in second belt and Rs.13.12 per sq.ft. for the lands<br \/>\nfalling in the third belt. The Reference Court however limited the division of<br \/>\nthe acquired lands into only two categories, that is lands falling within 500<br \/>\nmetres from the National Highway and lands falling beyond 500 metres from<br \/>\nthe National Highway. In regard to the first category, it awarded<br \/>\ncompensation at the rate of Rs.26.25 per sq.ft. and for the second category<br \/>\nRs.17.50 per sq.ft. Feeling aggrieved, both sides filed appeals. The High<br \/>\nCourt awarded a uniform rate of Rs.26.25 per sq.ft. for all the acquired lands<br \/>\nand rejected the belting system adopted by the collector and the<br \/>\ncategorization adopted by the Reference Court. The High Court also<br \/>\nconfirmed that claimants will be entitled to all statutory benefits, that is<br \/>\nadditional amount under section 23(1A), solatium under section 23(2) and<br \/>\ninterest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Ac&#8217; for short).\n<\/p>\n<p>    4. Neither the Reference Court nor the High Court increased the base<br \/>\n`rate&#8217; of compensation arrived at by the Collector, that is Rs.26\/25. . While the<br \/>\ncollector divided the acquired lands into three belts and reduced the rates for<br \/>\nlands in the second and third belts (interior lands), the Reference Court<br \/>\nrestricted the division of the acquired land into two belts and adopted the<br \/>\nrates fixed by the Collector for the first and second belts. The High Court<br \/>\ntreated all the acquired lands uniformly and awarded the same compensation<br \/>\nfor all lands by adopting the base rate of Rs.26\/25 fixed by the Collector. The<br \/>\nAuthority challenges the award on the following two grounds: (i) The High<br \/>\nCourt ought to have retained the three belt categorisation adopted by the<br \/>\ncollector instead of awarding a uniform rate for all the lands. (ii) The High<br \/>\nCourt ought not to have awarded interest under section 28 of the Act, when<br \/>\nthe Reference Court had not awarded any interest under the said section. On<br \/>\nthe other hand, the claimants in their appeals have contended that the<br \/>\ncompensation awarded was low and the Reference Court and High Court<br \/>\nought to have increased the compensation to at least Rs.40\/00 per sq.ft. They<br \/>\nalso contend that the High Court was justified in awarding compensation at a<br \/>\nuniform rate for all the acquired lands and in awarding interest under section<br \/>\n28 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    5. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for<br \/>\nconsideration :\n<\/p>\n<p>    (i)    Whether the High Court ought to have adopted the belt method for<br \/>\n           award of compensation?\n<\/p>\n<p>    (ii)   Whether the compensation awarded requires to be increased?\n<\/p>\n<p>    (iii) Whether the award of interest under section 28 of the Act is not<br \/>\n           sustainable?\n<\/p>\n<p>Re : Question (i)<\/p>\n<p>   6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly<br \/>\nat the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be<br \/>\nvalued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the<br \/>\nlocation, proximity to an access road\/Main Road\/Highway or to a<br \/>\nCity\/Town\/Village, and other relevant circumstances. We may illustrate :\n<\/p>\n<p>   (A). When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire<br \/>\n   area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land<br \/>\n   at a single uniform rate.\n<\/p>\n<p>   (B). If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road<br \/>\n   or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal<br \/>\n   procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate<br \/>\n   and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate.\n<\/p>\n<p>   (C) Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired,<br \/>\n   one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end<br \/>\n   being two to three kilometres away, obviously, the rate that is adopted for<br \/>\n   the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is<br \/>\n   farther away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting<br \/>\n   method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will<br \/>\n   be given the highest price, the remotest belt will be awarded the lowest<br \/>\n   rate, the belts\/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually<br \/>\n   reducing rates from the highest to the lowest.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (D) Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres<br \/>\n    is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city<br \/>\n    limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the<br \/>\n    entire land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one<br \/>\n    point to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to<br \/>\n    three kilometres may not make any difference.\n<\/p>\n<p>    7. The acquisition with which we are concerned relates to a comparatively<br \/>\nsmall extent of village land measuring about 38 bighas of compact contiguous<br \/>\nland. The High Court was of the view that the size and situation did not<br \/>\nwarrant any belting and all lands deserved the same rate of compensation.<br \/>\nThe Authority has not placed any material to show that any area was less<br \/>\nadvantageously situated. Therefore the view of the High Court that<br \/>\ncompensation should be awarded at an uniform rate does not call for<br \/>\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n<p>Re : Question (ii)<\/p>\n<p>    8. The collector has referred to several sale transactions but relied upon<br \/>\nonly one document, that is sale deed dated 19.12.1990 relating to an extent<br \/>\nof 11,550 sq.ft. of land sold for Rs.4,04,250\/-, which works out to a price of<br \/>\nRs.35 per sq.ft. The collector deducted 25% from the said price, as the relied<br \/>\nupon sale transaction related to a small extent of 11,550 sq.ft. and the<br \/>\nacquired area was a larger extent 8,45,174 sq.ft. By making such deduction,<br \/>\nhe arrived at the rate as Rs.26.25 per sq. ft. The Reference Court and the<br \/>\nHigh Court have also adopted the said sale transaction and valuation.\n<\/p>\n<p>    9. The claimants do not dispute the appropriateness of the said sale<br \/>\ntransaction taken as the basis for determination of compensation. Their<br \/>\ngrievance is that no deduction or cut should have been effected in the price<br \/>\ndisclosed by the sale deed, for arriving at the market value, in view of the<br \/>\nfollowing factors: (i) that the acquired lands were near to the main Bye-pass<br \/>\nRoad and had road access on two sides; (ii) that many residential houses had<br \/>\nalready come up in the surrounding areas, and the entire area was already<br \/>\nfast developing; and (iii) that the acquired land had the potential to be used<br \/>\nan urban residential area. When the value of a large extent of agricultural<br \/>\nland has to be determined with reference to the price fetched by sale of a<br \/>\nsmall residential plot, it is necessary to make an appropriate deduction<br \/>\ntowards the development cost, to arrive at the value of the large tract of land.<br \/>\nThe deduction towards development cost may vary from 20% to 75%<br \/>\ndepending upon various factors (see : Lal Chand vs. Union of India &#8211; 2009<br \/>\n(15) SCC 769). Even if the acquired lands have situational advantages, the<br \/>\nminimum deduction from the market value of a small presidential plot, to<br \/>\narrive at the market value of a larger agricultural land, is in the usual course,<br \/>\nwill be in the range of 20% to 25%. In this case, the Collector has himself<br \/>\nadopted a 25% deduction which has been affirmed by the Reference Court<br \/>\nand High Court. We therefore do not propose to alter it.\n<\/p>\n<p>    10. Only one grievance of the claimants remains to be addressed. The<br \/>\nclaimants pointed out that the relied upon sale transaction is dated<br \/>\n19.12.1990, whereas the notification under section 4(1) of the Act in this case<br \/>\nwas of 7.12.1991; and as there is a gap of nearly one year, an appropriate<br \/>\nincrease in the market value should have been provided keeping in view the<br \/>\nsteady increase in prices. It is well settled that an increase in market value by<br \/>\nabout 10% to 12% per year can be provided, in regard to lands situated near<br \/>\nurban areas having potential for non-agricultural development. (See : Sardar<br \/>\nJogendra Singh vs. State of UP &#8211; 2008 (17) SCC 133).\n<\/p>\n<p>    11. we are therefore of the view that the value arrived at by the Collector,<br \/>\nand accepted by the Reference Court and the High Court requires to be<br \/>\nincreased by 12% in view of the fact that the preliminary notification was one<br \/>\nyear after the relied upon sale transaction. Accordingly by increasing the<br \/>\nvalue of Rs.26\/25 by 12%, we arrive at the market value as on 7.12.1991 as<br \/>\nRs.29\/40, rounded off to Rs.29\/50 per sq.ft.\n<\/p>\n<p>Re : Question (iii)<\/p>\n<p>   12. The Authority points out that the Land Acquisition Collector had<br \/>\nawarded interest under section 34 of the Act, but the Reference Court did not<br \/>\naward any interest under section 28 of the Act. It is contended that when the<br \/>\nReference Court chose not to award any interest, the High court erred in<br \/>\nawarding interest under section 28 of the Act, in addition to the interest<br \/>\nawarded by the Collector under section 34 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>   13. The collector awarded interest under section 34 of the Act, on the<br \/>\ncompensation offered, at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year<br \/>\nfrom the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per<br \/>\nannum. The reference court did not specifically award any interest, because it<br \/>\ndid not `increase&#8217; the market value, but merely reclassified the acquired land<br \/>\ninto two categories instead of three categories and adopted the first and<br \/>\nsecond rates awarded by the collector for the two categories. However the<br \/>\nHigh Court deleted the belting\/ categorisation and awarded a uniform rate of<br \/>\nRs.26.25 per sq.ft. Therefore, there was in fact an increase in the<br \/>\ncompensation awarded for lands which were earlier classified by the Collector<br \/>\nas second and third belt lands. Therefore, interest under section 28 of the Act<br \/>\nhad to be granted. The scheme of the Act is that in regard to compensation<br \/>\namount, interest is payable at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one<br \/>\nyear from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% per annum<br \/>\nuntil deposit is made. In regard to the compensation that is offered by the<br \/>\nLand Acquisition Collector, the interest is payable under section 34 of the Act.<br \/>\nIn regard to the increase in such compensation, which is awarded by the<br \/>\nReference Court or any appellate court, such interest is awarded under<br \/>\nsection 28 of the Act. Sections 34 and 28 of the Act do not duplicate the<br \/>\naward of interest, but together cover the entire amount of compensation<br \/>\nawarded. The award of interest on the enhanced amount under section 28 of<br \/>\nthe Act is the normal rule. The refusal of interest should be by assigning<br \/>\nspecial or specific reasons. The contention of the Authority that the High<br \/>\nCourt ought not to have awarded interest under section 28 is therefore<br \/>\nuntenable.\n<\/p>\n<p>    14. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the Authority are dismissed.<br \/>\nThe appeals filed by the claimants &#8211; landowners are allowed and the<br \/>\ncompensation is increased from Rs.26.25 per sq.ft. to Rs.29.50 per sq.ft. We<br \/>\nreiterate that the claimants will be entitled to all the statutory benefits, that is<br \/>\nadditional amount under section 23(1A), solatium under section 23(2) and<br \/>\ninterest under section 28 of the Act. Parties to bear their respective costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Haridwar Development &#8230; vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010 Bench: R.V. Raveendran, K.S. Radhakrishnan HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAGHUBIR SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 1150-1167 of 2010) JANUARY 29, 2010 [R.V. Raveendran and K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.] 2010 (2) SCR 201 The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER R.V.RAVEENDRAN, [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Haridwar Development ... vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010 - 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\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Haridwar Development ... vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-07T01:07:12+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Haridwar Development &#8230; vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-07T01:07:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2045,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Haridwar Development ... vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-07T01:07:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Haridwar Development &#8230; vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Haridwar Development ... vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010 - 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\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Haridwar Development ... vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-07T01:07:12+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Haridwar Development &#8230; vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-07T01:07:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010"},"wordCount":2045,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010","name":"Haridwar Development ... vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-07T01:07:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridwar-development-vs-raghubir-singh-etc-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Haridwar Development &#8230; vs Raghubir Singh, Etc on 29 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/87688","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=87688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87688\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}