{"id":92478,"date":"2010-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-24T03:22:31","modified_gmt":"2018-11-23T21:52:31","slug":"dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: T Thakur<\/div>\n
Bench: Markandey Katju, T.S. Thakur<\/div>\n
                                                           REPORTABLE\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION\n\n            CIVIL APPEAL NOS._9198-9202 OF 2010\n\n\nDilawar Singh & Ors. etc.                      ...Appellants\n\n       Versus\n\nUnion of India & Ors.                          ...Respondents\n\nWith\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 9203\/2010, 9204\/2010, 9205-9209\/2010\n9210-9215\/2010, 9216-9217\/2010 and 9218-9219\/2010\n\n\n\n                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
T.S. THAKUR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Two questions fall for determination in these appeals<\/p>\n
that arise out of orders passed by the High Court of Punjab<\/p>\n
& Haryana at Chandigarh. These are –\n<\/p>\n
       1)   Whether   award   of   solatium   and   interest   is<\/p>\n
            permissible even in cases where acquisition of
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
              land is made under Requisitioning and Acquisition<\/p>\n
              of Immovable Property Act 1952; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      2)      Whether         the    land     owners   were    entitled    to<\/p>\n
              enhancement of compensation beyond Rs.200\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              per marla determined by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The questions arise in the following backdrop.<\/p>\n
           A large extent of land situate in the outskirts of<\/p>\n
Pathankot in the State of Punjab and underlying different<\/p>\n
survey numbers was acquired for defence purposes under<\/p>\n
the    provisions        of    Requisitioning      and     Acquisition     of<\/p>\n
Immovable Property Act, 1952. Failure of the parties to<\/p>\n
arrive at an agreement as to the amount of compensation<\/p>\n
payable to the expropriated owners of the land in question<\/p>\n
led the owners to seek appointment of an Arbitrator for<\/p>\n
determination       of    the        amount     payable   to   them.      The<\/p>\n
Government did not respond to the said request for a long<\/p>\n
time which forced the land-owners to approach the High<\/p>\n
Court of Punjab and Haryana in a writ petition seeking a<\/p>\n
mandamus         directing          the   Government      to   appoint    an
\n                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
Arbitrator. It is only after the said petition was allowed and a<\/p>\n
mandamus issued that the Government appointed the<\/p>\n
District Judge, Gurdaspur as an Arbitrator, sixteen years<\/p>\n
after the lands had been acquired. The Arbitrator recorded<\/p>\n
evidence   and   after   hearing   the   parties   came   to   the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the owners were entitled to compensation<\/p>\n
that ranged between Rs.50\/- per marla (Rs. 1000\/- per<\/p>\n
kanal) for land relevant to Civil Appeal No.9216-9217\/2010<\/p>\n
to Rs.200\/- per marla for lands relevant to Civil No. 9198-<\/p>\n
9202\/2010. Solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for the first<\/p>\n
year and 15% for the subsequent years till payment of the<\/p>\n
amount of compensation to them was also held payable to<\/p>\n
the landowners. Aggrieved by the said award the Union of<\/p>\n
India appealed to the High Court, inter alia, contending that<\/p>\n
the Arbitrator was not justified in awarding nor was there<\/p>\n
any provision for granting solatium and interest under the<\/p>\n
Act aforementioned.      The land-owners also challenged the<\/p>\n
award made by the Arbitrator by filing cross-objections<\/p>\n
before the High Court in which they prayed for enhancement
\n                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
of compensation payable to them to Rs.500\/- per marla. By<\/p>\n
a common judgment impugned in these appeals the High<\/p>\n
Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India.<\/p>\n
The cross-objections filed by the owners were also dismissed<\/p>\n
by separate orders unsupported by any reasons for denying<\/p>\n
the enhancement prayed for by them.        Relying upon the<\/p>\n
decision in Jagdish Prasad v. The Competent Authority,<\/p>\n
the High Court held that award of compensation @ Rs.150\/-<\/p>\n
per marla by the Arbitrator was justified on a uniform basis<\/p>\n
for all kinds of lands. The High Court overlooked the fact<\/p>\n
that in some cases the compensation awarded was Rs.50\/-<\/p>\n
per marla while in some others the same was awarded @<\/p>\n
Rs.200\/- per marla.     The High Court also noticed that<\/p>\n
compensation at the same rate had been granted to owners<\/p>\n
of land in village Nalunga which award had been affirmed by<\/p>\n
the High Court in LPA 721 of 1987 filed by the Union of India<\/p>\n
and decided on 3rd September, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     The High Court also came to the conclusion that award<\/p>\n
of solatium and interest was justified having regard to the
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
delay on the part of Government in appointing an Arbitrator.<\/p>\n
Reliance was placed by the High Court on the decision of this<\/p>\n
Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead)<\/a><\/p>\n
by LRs. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 149. The High Court, however,<\/p>\n
modified the order to the extent that instead of describing<\/p>\n
the amount as solatium and interest the same was described<\/p>\n
as compensation for the lands acquired by the Government.<\/p>\n
Both the parties have come up in appeal against the above<\/p>\n
order. While the appeals filed by the Union of India call in<\/p>\n
question the correctness of the view taken by the High Court<\/p>\n
in regard to solatium and interest, the cross appeals filed by<\/p>\n
the owners assail the correctness of the orders passed by<\/p>\n
the   High    Court   whereby     cross-objections    seeking<\/p>\n
enhancement of the amount of compensation to Rs.500\/-<\/p>\n
per marla have been rejected by non-speaking orders.<\/p>\n
         It is common ground that the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,<\/p>\n
1952 do not make any provision for the grant of solatium or<\/p>\n
interest to the expropriated landowners. The absence of any
\n                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
such provision in the said Act was in fact made a basis for a<\/p>\n
challenge to the constitutional validity of the enactment<\/p>\n
which was repelled by this Court in Union of India v. Hari<\/p>\n
Krishan Khosla<\/a> 1993 (Supp) 2 SCC 149. This Court pointed<\/p>\n
out that any comparison between acquisition made under<\/p>\n
the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property<\/p>\n
Act, 1952 with that made under the Land Acquisition Act<\/p>\n
would be odious in view of the dissimilarities between the<\/p>\n
two enactments. That decision was followed in subsequent<\/p>\n
pronouncements of this Court in Union of India v. Chajju<\/p>\n
Ram<\/a> 2003 (5) SCC 568 where a similar attack was mounted<\/p>\n
against the constitutional validity of Defence of India Act,<\/p>\n
1971 but repelled by this Court relying upon the decision in<\/p>\n
Hari Krishan Khosla. What is noteworthy is that in both<\/p>\n
these matters   this Court had made a distinction between<\/p>\n
cases   in   which   there   was   inordinate   delay   in   the<\/p>\n
appointment of an Arbitrator and consequent delay in the<\/p>\n
determination of the amount of compensation payable to the<\/p>\n
owners and other case where there was no such delay. In
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
paragraph 79 of the judgment of this Court in Hari Krishan<\/p>\n
Khosla, this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         “This is a case in which for 16 years no
\n         arbitrator was appointed. We think it is just
\n         and proper to apply the principle laid down in
\n         Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v. Union of India
\n         (Civil Appeal Nos.<\/a> 470 and 471 of 1985,
\n         disposed of by this Court on February 11,
\n         1985). The Court held as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “Having regard to the peculiar facts and
\n         circumstances of the present case and
\n         particularly in view of the fact that the
\n         appointment of the arbitrator was not made
\n         by the Union of India for a period of 16
\n         years, we think this is a fit case in which
\n         solatium at the rate of 30 per cent of the
\n         amount of compensation and interest at the
\n         rate of 9 per cent per annum should be
\n         awarded to the appellants. We are making
\n         this order having regard to the fact that the
\n         law has in the meanwhile been amended with
\n         a view to providing solatium at the rate of 30
\n         per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent
\n         per annum.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Even in Union of India v. Chajju Ram<\/a> (supra), this<\/p>\n
Court noted the delay in the appointment of an Arbitrator<\/p>\n
and directed that the amount of interest and solatium paid<\/p>\n
to the land owners decades back shall not be recovered from<\/p>\n
the land owners. This Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
           “In these cases also, it is said that the
\n           arbitrators have not yet been appointed
\n           despite the demand made in this behalf by
\n           the respondents. The amount of solatium at
\n           the rate of 15% per annum and the interest
\n           thereupon had been paid in the early
\n           eighties when the Punjab and Haryana High
\n           Court declared the said Act ultra vires
\n           Article 14 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             In the peculiar fact situation obtaining in
\n           these cases and inasmuch as the amounts
\n           sought to be recovered are small which
\n           were paid to the respondents decades back,
\n           we are of the opinion that interest of justice
\n           shall be met if the appellants are directed
\n           not to recover the amount of compensation
\n           from the respondents pursuant to or in
\n           furtherance of this judgment. However, we
\n           hasten to add that this direction shall not be
\n           treated as a precedent.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The above decisions were then followed by this Court in<\/p>\n
Prabhu Dayal and Others v. Union of India<\/a> 1995 (4)<\/p>\n
SCC 221.    That was also a case where the appointment of<\/p>\n
Arbitrator was delayed by 22 years. This Court relying upon<\/p>\n
the decision in Hari Krishan Khosla and Harbans Singh<\/p>\n
v. Union of India, C.A. Nos.<\/a> 470 & 471 of 1985 disposed<\/p>\n
of on 11th February 1985, observed:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “It is next contended that the appellants are
\n           entitled to the solatium though in law they
\n           are not entitled but in equity they are
\n           entitled to the solatium for the reason that
\n                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
         for 22 years arbitrator was not appointed to
\n         determine the market value. In support they
\n         relied upon the judgment of this Court in
\n         Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla. Therein<\/a>
\n         this Court relied upon another judgment in
\n         Harbans Singh v. Union of India. In<\/a> that
\n         judgment this Court said that having regard
\n         to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
\n         present case and in view of the fact that the
\n         appointment of the arbitrator was not made
\n         by the Union of India for period of 16 years,
\n         this Court considered in equity to give
\n         solatium at the rate of 30 per cent of the
\n         amount of compensation and interest at the
\n         rate of 9 per cent per annum should be
\n         awarded to the appellants therein. In this
\n         case, the question of appointing the
\n         arbitrator would arise only when the market
\n         value offered was rejected by the claimants.
\n         The offer was made and rejected on 13-10-
\n         1961 and the arbitrator came to appoint on
\n         22-9-1966 after five years. Under these
\n         circumstances, the claimants are entitled to
\n         solatium at the rate of 15 per cent on the
\n         market value. The appellants did not
\n         challenge the rate of interest granted at 6
\n         per cent. Accordingly they are also entitled to
\n         the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per
\n         annum. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
\n         The appellants are entitled to the relief as
\n         stated above. No costs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    We may at this stage to refer to a recent decision of<\/p>\n
this Court in Union of India v. Parmal Singh and Others<\/a><\/p>\n
2009 (1) SCC     618 where the question    whether solatium<\/p>\n
and interest could be awarded to the expropriated land<\/p>\n
owners   under   the    Requisitioning   and   Acquisition   of
\n                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
Immovable Property Act, 1952 was once again examined.<\/p>\n
Relying upon the decision of this Court in Satinder Singh<\/p>\n
v. Umrao Singh AIR 1961 SC 908, Union of India v. Hari<\/p>\n
Krishan Khosla<\/a> (supra) and Union of India v. Chajju<\/p>\n
Ram<\/a> 2003 (5) SCC 568 and the English decision in Swift<\/p>\n
and Co. v. Board of Trade 1925 AC 520(HL) and<\/p>\n
Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. v. New Brunswick<\/p>\n
Electric Power Commission 1928 AC 492, this Court<\/p>\n
upheld the award of interest in favour of the landowners.<\/p>\n
This Court said:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “When a property is acquired, and law
\n          provides for payment of compensation to be
\n          determined      in  the     manner     specified,
\n          ordinarily compensation shall have to be paid
\n          at the time of taking possession in pursuance
\n          of   acquisition.   By     applying    equitable
\n          principles, the courts have always awarded
\n          interest on the delayed payment of
\n          compensation in regard to acquisition of any
\n          property. When a requisitioned property is
\n          acquired, as possession had already been
\n          taken from the landholder, the compensation
\n          becomes      payable    from    the    date    of
\n          acquisition. When a property is requisitioned,
\n          the landowner is compensated for the denial
\n          of possession by paying compensation based
\n          on the rent it would have fetched had it not
\n          been requisitioned. But once the property is
\n          acquired,     the   rent     is   stopped,     as
\n          compensation based on open market value
\n          becomes      payable      against    acquisition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
         Therefore, while interest is payable, it is not
\n         awarded from the date of requisition (taking
\n         over of possession) but only from the date of
\n         acquisition.   This   principle   has     been
\n         recognised and applied by the courts
\n         consistently.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It is noteworthy that the High Court of Punjab and<\/p>\n
Haryana has in Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr.<\/a> in<\/p>\n
LPA No. 1918 of 1989 and connected matters upheld grant<\/p>\n
of solatium and interest in regard to a similar acquisition<\/p>\n
made in terms of    a notification issued in January 1970.<\/p>\n
While doing so the High Court placed reliance upon its<\/p>\n
decision in Shankar Singh and Others v. Union of India<\/p>\n
1988 (1) PLR 163 Mr. Subramanium, learned Solicitor<\/p>\n
General fairly conceded that no appeal has been preferred<\/p>\n
by the Union of India against the decision in Shankar<\/p>\n
Singh’s case (supra) or that delivered in Union of India v.<\/p>\n
Inder Singh and Anr<\/a> (supra). In that view of the matter<\/p>\n
therefore and having regard to the fact that there was an<\/p>\n
inordinate delay of 16 years in the appointment of an<\/p>\n
Arbitrator in the present cases, we have no hesitation in
\n                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
holding that the principle laid down by this Court in the<\/p>\n
decisions referred to above would entitle the land owners to<\/p>\n
the benefit of solatium and interest especially when the<\/p>\n
owners who have lost land in similar circumstances and for<\/p>\n
the same purpose have been given such a benefit.<\/p>\n
     That brings us to the question whether the land-owners<\/p>\n
are entitled to claim any enhancement in the amount of<\/p>\n
compensation determined in these cases. In Union of India<\/p>\n
etc. v. Inder Singh and Anr. (LPA No.1918 of 1989) and<\/p>\n
connected matters to which we have referred earlier the<\/p>\n
High Court has upheld the enhancement of compensation to<\/p>\n
Rs.350\/- per marla. The High Court was in that case dealing<\/p>\n
with a similar question arising out of the very same<\/p>\n
acquisition process.   Relying upon its decision in Shanker<\/p>\n
Singh and Ors. v. Union of India 1988 (1) PLR 163, a<\/p>\n
Single Bench of the High Court in Inder Singh’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) enhanced the compensation payable to the land-<\/p>\n
owners to Rs.350\/- per marla. Five appeals were preferred<\/p>\n
before the Division Bench against the said order out of which
\n                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
two appeals were dismissed by separate orders of the Court<\/p>\n
while the third was dismissed for non-prosecution. The result<\/p>\n
was that out of five appeals challenging the order passed by<\/p>\n
the Single Judge awards in favour of the land-owners in the<\/p>\n
case of three dismissed appeals attained finality entitling the<\/p>\n
land-owners respondents in those appeals to compensation<\/p>\n
@ Rs.350\/- per marla. The refusal of a similar relief in the<\/p>\n
remaining cases was not, therefore, considered just and<\/p>\n
equitable when there were no distinguishing features to<\/p>\n
justify such a refusal.   The High Court also found that the<\/p>\n
decision in Shanker Singh’ case (supra) was squarely<\/p>\n
applicable in the case before it on account of the proximity<\/p>\n
of the acquisitions in point of time. The notification in<\/p>\n
Shanker Singh’ case (supra) was issued on 6th March, 1970<\/p>\n
whereas that in Inder Singh’ case (supra) was issued on 9th<\/p>\n
January, 1970. The amount of compensation determined in<\/p>\n
Shanker Singh’s case (supra) was therefore found by the<\/p>\n
High Court to be relevant for award of compensation in<\/p>\n
Inder Singh’s case (supra) also.\n<\/p>\n
                              14<\/span><\/p>\n
       In the present batch of cases except the case the<\/p>\n
notification for acquisition was issued in February 1970<\/p>\n
which is proximate in point of time to those issued in the<\/p>\n
Shanker Singh and Inder Singh’s cases (supra). The<\/p>\n
notification in Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil<\/p>\n
Appeal No.<\/a> 9204\/2010) was issued on 12.5.1964 and<\/p>\n
published on 12.6.1964. That apart the lands in question<\/p>\n
were all acquired for the very same purpose and are situated<\/p>\n
on the outskirts of a growing town like Pathankot.        The<\/p>\n
growing non-agriculture potential of such lands is also not in<\/p>\n
serious dispute. The High Court has failed to notice all these<\/p>\n
aspects apparently because the decisions in Shanker<\/p>\n
Singh’s case and that delivered in Inder Singh’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) were handed down subsequent to the impugned<\/p>\n
order. Suffice it to say that on the material available before<\/p>\n
us we see no reason why the amount of compensation<\/p>\n
payable to the landowners appellants in these appeals<\/p>\n
should also not be enhanced to Rs.350\/- per marla with<\/p>\n
proportionate benefits towards solatium and interest as
\n                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld by the High Court in<\/p>\n
those cases and in similar other cases to which we have<\/p>\n
referred in the earlier part of this order. In so far as<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh’s case (supra) is concerned, the appeal<\/p>\n
has been filed by the Union of India against grant of<\/p>\n
solatium and interest.   No appeal has been filed by the<\/p>\n
owners in that case for enhancement of the amount of<\/p>\n
compensation. Even otherwise in the absence of any cogent<\/p>\n
evidence to justify any such enhancement, there is no room<\/p>\n
for directing payment of a large amount of compensation.<\/p>\n
      In the result, we allow Civil Appeals Nos.9198-9202\/<\/p>\n
2010 and Civil Appeals Nos.9218-9219\/2010 filed by the<\/p>\n
owners and modify the award made by the Arbitrator to the<\/p>\n
extent that instead of Rs.200\/- per marla, the owners shall<\/p>\n
be entitled to 350\/- per marla towards compensation with<\/p>\n
proportionate benefits like solatium and interest on the said<\/p>\n
amount. The appellants-owners shall also be entitled to<\/p>\n
proportionate costs in this Court and the Courts below.
\n                              16<\/span><\/p>\n
     Civil   Appeals   Nos.9203\/2010,      9204\/2010,          9205-<\/p>\n
9209\/2010, 9210-9215\/2010 and 9216-9217\/2010 filed by<\/p>\n
Union of India, however, fail and are dismissed leaving the<\/p>\n
parties to bear their own costs in these appeals.<\/p>\n
                                    ……………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                    (MARKANDEY KATJU)<\/p>\n
                                    ……………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                    (T.S. THAKUR)
\nNew Delhi
\nOctober 26, 2010<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010 Author: T Thakur Bench: Markandey Katju, T.S. Thakur REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION CIVIL APPEAL NOS._9198-9202 OF 2010 Dilawar Singh & Ors. etc. …Appellants Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents With […]<\/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-92478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010 - 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\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-23T21:52:31+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-23T21:52:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2847,\"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\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-23T21:52:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010 - 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\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-23T21:52:31+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-23T21:52:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010"},"wordCount":2847,"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\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010","name":"Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-23T21:52:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilawar-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dilawar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/92478","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=92478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92478\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}