{"id":92924,"date":"2011-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-07T17:18:29","modified_gmt":"2018-06-07T11:48:29","slug":"delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                                                 REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n\n     SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)No.27278 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\nDelhi Development Authority       ...    Petitioner  \n\n\n\n                 Vs.\n\n\n                                                           2\n\n\n\n\n\nRam Prakash                              ...    Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    The   Delhi   Development   Authority,   hereinafter, <\/p>\n
referred   to   as   “DDA”   is   the   petitioner   in   this <\/p>\n
Special   Leave   Petition,   which   is   directed   against <\/p>\n
the judgment and order dated 2.5.2008 passed by the <\/p>\n
Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No.22 of 2008.<\/p>\n
2.    The   respondent   herein,   along   with   his   mother <\/p>\n
and   wife,   purchased   a   property   in   No.7,   Community <\/p>\n
Center,   East   of   Kailash,   New   Delhi,   in   an   open <\/p>\n
auction   conducted   by   the   DDA   on   10.8.1969. <\/p>\n
Possession   of   the   plot   was   made   over   to   the <\/p>\n
purchasers on 5th March, 1972, and a lease deed in <\/p>\n
respect of the said plot was executed on 5th April, <\/p>\n
                                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
1972.     In   terms   of   the   Lease   Deed,   the   auction <\/p>\n
purchasers were required to construct the building <\/p>\n
upon   the   demised   plot   within   two   years   from   the <\/p>\n
date of delivery of possession.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    It appears that on a routine inspection by the <\/p>\n
petitioner’s   staff   on   8th   August,   1983,   it   was <\/p>\n
noticed that the respondent was using the basement <\/p>\n
of   the   building   for   office   purposes   which   was   in <\/p>\n
contravention of the prescribed usage. A Show-Cause <\/p>\n
Notice was issued on the same day calling upon the <\/p>\n
respondent to Show-Cause within 10 days as to why <\/p>\n
action   for   cancellation   of   lease   should   not   be <\/p>\n
taken for violation of clause II(13) of the Lease <\/p>\n
Deed.     The   respondent   replied   to   the   said   Show-<\/p>\n
Cause   Notice   on   10th   August,   1983,   denying   misuse <\/p>\n
of   the   property.     No   further   action   was   taken   on <\/p>\n
the   said   Show-Cause   Notice   till   seven   years   later <\/p>\n
when on 28th June, 1990, another Show-Cause Notice <\/p>\n
was issued stating as to why the lease should not <\/p>\n
                                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
be determined for violation of clause II(13) of the <\/p>\n
Lease Deed on the ground that the basement of the <\/p>\n
building   was   being   misused   as   an   office   for <\/p>\n
Frooti\/Atash Industry, instead of storage, and the <\/p>\n
mezzanine   floor   was   being   used   for   the   office   of <\/p>\n
M\/s Ferrow Alloys Forging & M\/s Green Land, instead <\/p>\n
of storage.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    In response to the second Show-Cause Notice the <\/p>\n
respondent   replied   stating   that   the   portion   in <\/p>\n
question   had   been   leased   to   the   above-named <\/p>\n
companies for storage purposes and their failure to <\/p>\n
abide by the terms of the lease has been brought to <\/p>\n
the   notice   of   the   tenants   for   taking   appropriate <\/p>\n
steps.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.Since the reply was not found to be satisfactory, <\/p>\n
further   Show-Cause   Notices   were   issued   to   the <\/p>\n
respondent   on   3.9.1990   and   11.12.1990   in   relation <\/p>\n
                                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
to   the   violation   of   the   provisions   of   the   Lease <\/p>\n
Deed   and   to   remove   the   breaches   which   had   been <\/p>\n
pointed out, in default whereof the lease would be <\/p>\n
determined.     The   respondents   replied   to   the   Show-<\/p>\n
Cause   Notice   dated   3.9.1990   on   5.11.1990   stating <\/p>\n
that the tenant was using the basement for storage <\/p>\n
of Frooti juices  and was not operating any office <\/p>\n
therefrom.   It was also mentioned that the tenant <\/p>\n
in the mezzanine floor had not yet replied to the <\/p>\n
notice which had been issued to him.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.However,   on   the   basis   of   another   inspection   of <\/p>\n
the premises conducted in December, 1990, where it <\/p>\n
was noticed that both the floors were still being <\/p>\n
misused,   notices   were   issued   for   joint   inspection <\/p>\n
which   was   fixed   for   18.2.1991,   12.3.1991   and <\/p>\n
22.4.1991.     However,   the   respondents   did   not   join <\/p>\n
the   inspection   and   ultimately   an   inspection   was <\/p>\n
carried   out   on   24.4.1991   and   another   Show-Cause <\/p>\n
Notice   was   issued   to   the   respondents   on   8.5.1991. <\/p>\n
                                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
In   response   to   the   said   Show-Cause   Notice   the <\/p>\n
respondents wrote back on 21.5.1991 that they have <\/p>\n
no control over the tenants, except to inform them <\/p>\n
of   their   violations.     Ultimately,   the   respondents <\/p>\n
in   its   letter   dated   9.7.1991   stated   that   the <\/p>\n
mezzanine   floor   was   being   used   as   offices.     In <\/p>\n
reply to the said letter written on behalf of the <\/p>\n
respondent   the   petitioner   informed   the   respondent <\/p>\n
that   as   per   architectural   design   the   mezzanine <\/p>\n
floor could be used only for storage and unless the <\/p>\n
misuse   was   stopped   the   lease   would   have   to   be <\/p>\n
determined.   In   response   on   13.11.1991   the <\/p>\n
respondent   once   again   asserted   that   the   mezzanine <\/p>\n
floor   in   the   Community   Centre   was   not   being <\/p>\n
misused.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.Thereafter, there was a series of correspondence <\/p>\n
exchanged   on   the   same   subject.   In   the   meanwhile, <\/p>\n
Smt.   Kamla   Ahluwalia,   the   wife   of   the   respondent, <\/p>\n
                                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
died   on   23.4.1994,   as   did   Smt.   Saraswati   Devi   on <\/p>\n
6.8.1994.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.On   20.5.2004   the   respondent   applied   to   the   DDA <\/p>\n
for mutation of the property in favour of the legal <\/p>\n
heirs   of   the   deceased   co-auction   purchasers.     In <\/p>\n
response   thereto   the   respondents   were   asked   by   a <\/p>\n
letter   dated   20.5.2004   to   pay   misuser   charges   and <\/p>\n
were   called   upon   to   clear   the   dues   in   respect <\/p>\n
thereof.   Aggrieved   by   the   said   demand   notice   the <\/p>\n
respondents   filed   a   Writ   Petition,   being   W.P.No. <\/p>\n
8464   of   2006,   in   the   High   Court   for   quashing   the <\/p>\n
demand   of   misuser   charges   amounting   to <\/p>\n
Rs.1,78,85,001\/-.  The same was allowed by the High <\/p>\n
Court   on   17.8.2007   and   the   demand   of   misuser <\/p>\n
charges   raised   by   the   DDA,   by   its   letter   dated <\/p>\n
20.5.2004, was quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.The   DDA   filed   Letters   Patent   Appeal,   being   LPA <\/p>\n
No.22 of 2008 on 12.12.2007, challenging the order <\/p>\n
                                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
of the learned Single Judge dated 17.8.2007, which <\/p>\n
was dismissed on 2.5.2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.It is against the said order of dismissal of the <\/p>\n
LPA by the Delhi High Court that this Special Leave <\/p>\n
Petition has been filed by the DDA.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. Appearing for the DDA, Mr. A. Sharan, learned <\/p>\n
Senior   Advocate,   submitted   that,   although,   under <\/p>\n
the   terms   of   the   lease   deed,   the   respondent   was <\/p>\n
allowed   to   use   the   premises   for   commercial <\/p>\n
purposes,   he   had   misused   the   same   and   that   the <\/p>\n
premises   was   being   used   for   running   an   office. <\/p>\n
Furthermore, a construction had been raised on the <\/p>\n
terrace   which   was   unauthorized   and   in   direct <\/p>\n
violation of the lease agreement.  It was submitted <\/p>\n
that the misuser of the property came to the notice <\/p>\n
of   the   DDA   during   inspection,   as   such   misuser   of <\/p>\n
the   demised   premises   had   been   carried   on   without <\/p>\n
notice   to   and   the   leave   of   the   DDA.     Mr.   Sharan <\/p>\n
also   submitted   that   as   many   as   14   Show-Cause <\/p>\n
                                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
Notices   had   to   be   issued   to   the   respondent   on <\/p>\n
account   of   such   misuser.     Since   the   respondent <\/p>\n
failed to comply with the requisitions contained in <\/p>\n
the   said   notices,   the   DDA   issued   a   notice   for <\/p>\n
Rs.1,78,85,001\/-,   on   account   of   misuser   charges <\/p>\n
against which the respondent filed a writ petition, <\/p>\n
being W.P.(C)No.8464 of 2006, which was allowed by <\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge and the demand of misuser <\/p>\n
charges   raised   by   the   petitioner   by   its   letter <\/p>\n
dated 20th May, 2004, was quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12. The   DDA   filed   Letters   Patent   Appeal   No.22   of <\/p>\n
2008 against the said order of the learned Single <\/p>\n
Judge before the Division Bench which dismissed the <\/p>\n
same   on   the   ground   that   while   according   to   the <\/p>\n
petitioner-Authority, a portion of the premises was <\/p>\n
being   used   for   office   premises,   according   to   the <\/p>\n
respondent   the   said   portion   of   the   premises   was <\/p>\n
being used only to store computers.   There was no <\/p>\n
office   as   such,   but   a   small   establishment   was <\/p>\n
                                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
maintained by the tenant for accounting purposes of <\/p>\n
the   goods   brought   to   the   premises   for   storage <\/p>\n
purposes only.   It was not as if a regular office <\/p>\n
was being run from the said premises.<\/p>\n
13. As   far   as   the   other   part   of   alleged   misuse <\/p>\n
relating   to   construction   raised   on   the   terrace   of <\/p>\n
the premises is concerned, it was stated on behalf <\/p>\n
of   the   respondent   that   such   construction   had   been <\/p>\n
raised by the tenant without obtaining the sanction <\/p>\n
of the lessee and consequently, the respondent had <\/p>\n
initiated action against the said tenants for their <\/p>\n
eviction therefrom.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. What   also   weighed   with   the   Judge   is   the   fact <\/p>\n
that   the   first   Show-Cause   Notice   issued   to   the <\/p>\n
petitioner was in regard to alleged misuse of the <\/p>\n
basement from 30th July, 1983, the mezzanine floor <\/p>\n
from   20th   June,   1990,   and   the   terrace   from   7th <\/p>\n
September, 1992, till 13th January, 2003.  However, <\/p>\n
although, the first Show-Cause Notice was issued to <\/p>\n
                                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
the   respondent   on   8th   August,   1983,   regarding <\/p>\n
misuse   of   the   basement   and   a   reply   was   also <\/p>\n
submitted   by   the   respondent   on   10th   August,   1983, <\/p>\n
no decision was taken by the DDA on the said Show-<\/p>\n
Cause   Notice.     On   the   other   hand,   in   June   1990, <\/p>\n
upon   an   alleged   inspection   by   the   DDA,   another <\/p>\n
Show-Cause   Notice   was   issued   to   the   respondent   on <\/p>\n
28th   June,   1990,   only   in   respect   of   the   alleged <\/p>\n
misuse   of   the   basement   and   the   mezzanine   floor. <\/p>\n
Despite   a   reply   being   sent,   again   no   action   was <\/p>\n
taken by the DDA except for issuing Final Notices <\/p>\n
to the respondent on 3rd September, 1990 and 11th <\/p>\n
December, 1990, requiring him to stop violation of <\/p>\n
the conditions of the lease deed, failing which it <\/p>\n
would be terminated.   The respondent sent a reply <\/p>\n
to   the   first   Final   Notice   on   5th   November,   1990, <\/p>\n
but again no decision was taken on any of the two <\/p>\n
Final   Notices   which   had   been   sent   to   the <\/p>\n
respondent.     Periodical   inspection   was   thereafter <\/p>\n
carried out, but no action was at all taken by the <\/p>\n
                                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
DDA and its authorities against the respondent for <\/p>\n
alleged misuse of the premises in question.  <\/p>\n
15. Ultimately,   on   a   question   of   limitation   being <\/p>\n
raised in respect of the demand of misuser charges, <\/p>\n
the Division Bench observed that where no period of <\/p>\n
limitation is prescribed, action has to be taken by <\/p>\n
the authorities within a reasonable period of time, <\/p>\n
but by no stretch of imagination, could it be said <\/p>\n
that after a lapse of almost 25 years that the DDA <\/p>\n
had not acted arbitrarily or at least unfairly in <\/p>\n
so   far   as   the   respondent   is   concerned.     In <\/p>\n
addition, the respondent was never informed by the <\/p>\n
DDA   that   he   was   required   to   pay   any   misuser <\/p>\n
charges.     On   the   basis   of   such   reasoning,   the <\/p>\n
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   dismissed   the <\/p>\n
appeal and upheld the order of the learned Single <\/p>\n
Judge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16. Mr.   Sharan   submitted   that   both   the   learned <\/p>\n
Single   Judge   and   the   Division   Bench   had <\/p>\n
                                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
misconstrued the principles relating to limitation <\/p>\n
in holding that the DDA had acted arbitrarily and <\/p>\n
unfairly in so far as the respondent was concerned, <\/p>\n
and,   in   any   event,   the   respondent   was   never <\/p>\n
informed   by   the   DDA   that   he   was   required   to   pay <\/p>\n
misuse charges.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17. Mr. Sharan urged that both the Single Judge and <\/p>\n
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   failed   to <\/p>\n
consider the core issue relating to the user of the <\/p>\n
premises in keeping with paragraph 13 of the lease <\/p>\n
deed   executed   by   the   DDA   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
respondent on 5th April, 1972.  In this regard Mr. <\/p>\n
Sharan referred to paragraph 13 of the lease deed <\/p>\n
which reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “13)       The   lessee   shall   not   without
\n        the written consent of the lessor carry
\n        on   or   permit   to   be   carried   on,   on   the
\n        plot   or   in   any   building   thereon   any
\n        trade   or   business   of   manufacture   which
\n        in   opinion   of   the   lessor   may   be   noisy,
\n        noxious   or   offensive   or   the   same   or
\n        permit   the   same   to   be   used   for   any
\n        purpose other than those specified or do
\n        or suffer to be done therein any act or <\/p>\n
                                                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
        thing whatsoever which in the opinion of
\n        the   lessor   may   be   a   nuisance   annoyance
\n        or   disturbance   to   the   lessor   or   the
\n        person living in the neighbourhood.<\/p>\n
        Provided that, if the lessee is desirous
\n        of   using   the   said   plot   or   the   building
\n        thereon   for   a   purpose   other   than   those
\n        specified   the   lessor   may   allow   such
\n        change   or   user   on   such   terms   and
\n        conditions         including         payment         of
\n        additional   premium   and   additional   rent,
\n        as   the   lessor   may   in   his   absolute
\n        discretion determine.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. Mr. Sharan submitted that having regard to the <\/p>\n
above, the respondent was not entitled to use the <\/p>\n
demised premises in a manner which was contrary to <\/p>\n
paragraph 13 of the lease deed.   It was contended <\/p>\n
that the respondent was carrying on a business in <\/p>\n
the   demised   premises   in   respect   whereof   there   was <\/p>\n
no   feed   back   whatsoever   from   the   lessee.     Mr. <\/p>\n
Sharan urged that the order of the learned Single <\/p>\n
Judge   dated   17th   August,   2007,   could   not   be <\/p>\n
sustained and the same was liable to be set aside, <\/p>\n
along with the order of the Division Bench impugned <\/p>\n
in the Special Leave Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                              15<\/span><\/p>\n
19. Appearing   in   person,   the   respondent,   on   the <\/p>\n
other   hand,   submitted   that   after   the   Show-Cause <\/p>\n
Notices were issued no action whatsoever was taken <\/p>\n
on   the   basis   thereof   and   all   of   a   sudden   the <\/p>\n
exorbitant   misuser   charges,   amounting   to <\/p>\n
Rs.1,78,85,001\/- was demanded from him.   Professor <\/p>\n
Ram   Prakash   submitted   that   from   1983,   nothing   had <\/p>\n
been done by the DDA on the basis of the Show-Cause <\/p>\n
Notices   which   had   been   issued,   to   which   the <\/p>\n
respondent   had   promptly   replied   stating   that   the <\/p>\n
construction   on   the   terrace   had   been   effected   by <\/p>\n
the tenants and not by him and in respect whereof <\/p>\n
proper   proceedings   had   been   initiated   for   their <\/p>\n
eviction   from   the   premises.   The   respondent <\/p>\n
submitted that it is only under severe compulsion, <\/p>\n
that   he   had   to   move   the   Writ   Court   for   relief   in <\/p>\n
relation   to   the   demand   of   misuser   charges   of <\/p>\n
Rs.1,78,85,001\/-.     The   respondent   submitted   that <\/p>\n
for   the   last   25   years   he   had   been   made   to   face <\/p>\n
                                                           16<\/span><\/p>\n
various problems and uncertainties, but that it was <\/p>\n
entirely   unjustified   on   the   part   of   the   DDA   to <\/p>\n
raise   the   claim   of   alleged   misuser   charges   of <\/p>\n
Rs.1,78,85,001\/-.   The   respondent   submitted   that <\/p>\n
after   a   long   period   of   25   years,   a   quietus   was <\/p>\n
required to be given to the matter.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20. The respondent submitted that after issuance of <\/p>\n
Show-Cause   Notices,   the   DDA   should   have   taken <\/p>\n
further   steps   in   the   matter   within   a   reasonable <\/p>\n
time   and   that   too   relating   to   misuser   chargers <\/p>\n
where   he   was   not   at   fault.     The   respondent <\/p>\n
submitted that he had taken prompt steps not only <\/p>\n
to reply to the Show-Cause Notices issued to him, <\/p>\n
but to initiate action against the tenants who had <\/p>\n
used the property in a manner which was different <\/p>\n
from   the   purpose   for   which   the   property   had   been <\/p>\n
let out.  The respondent submitted that this was a <\/p>\n
case   where   both   the   learned   Single   Judge   and   the <\/p>\n
Division   Bench   decided   the   matter   in   the   crucible <\/p>\n
                                                          17<\/span><\/p>\n
of   events   peculiar   to   the   facts   of   this   case, <\/p>\n
having   particular   regard   to   the   length   of   the <\/p>\n
period   for   which   the   misuser   charges   had   been <\/p>\n
demanded.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
21. Having   considered   the   submissions   made   on <\/p>\n
behalf of the DDA and by the respondent appearing <\/p>\n
in-person, and also having considered the reasoning <\/p>\n
of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench <\/p>\n
in repudiating the claim of misuser charges by the <\/p>\n
DDA, we are unable to convince ourselves that the <\/p>\n
decisions rendered by the High Court, both by the <\/p>\n
learned   Single   Judge   as   also   the   Division   Bench, <\/p>\n
require any interference in these proceedings.  The <\/p>\n
materials   on   record   will   show   that   the   respondent <\/p>\n
took   prompt   steps   against   the   tenants   for   their <\/p>\n
transgression.     During   arguments   it   was   indicated <\/p>\n
that,   in   fact,   one   of   the   tenants   had   already <\/p>\n
vacated   the   portion   of   the   premises   occupied   by <\/p>\n
him.  It is also very clear that after issuing the <\/p>\n
                                                           18<\/span><\/p>\n
Show-Cause Notices, the petitioner did not take any <\/p>\n
follow-up action thereupon.  Instead, after a lapse <\/p>\n
of   25   years,   the   petitioner   set   up   a   claim   on <\/p>\n
account of charges for the entire period.  It would <\/p>\n
be   inequitable   to   allow   the   petitioner   which   had <\/p>\n
sat   over   the   matter   to   take   advantage   of   its <\/p>\n
inaction in claiming misuser charges.<\/p>\n
22. Even as to the contention raised on behalf of <\/p>\n
the   petitioner   that   there   was   no   limitation <\/p>\n
prescribed   for   making   a   demand   of   arrear   charges, <\/p>\n
the Division Bench relying on the decision of this <\/p>\n
Court   in  State   of   Punjab   &   Ors.   Vs.   Bhatinda <\/p>\n
District   Cooperative   Milk   Producers   Union   Ltd. <\/p>\n
[(2007)   11   SCC   363],   observed   that   even   where   no <\/p>\n
period   of   limitation   is   indicated,   the   statutory <\/p>\n
Authority   is   required   to   act   within   a   reasonable <\/p>\n
time.     In   our   view,   what   would   construe   a <\/p>\n
reasonable   time,   depends   on   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
circumstances   of   each   case,   but   it   would   not   be <\/p>\n
                                                          19<\/span><\/p>\n
fair to the respondent if such demand is allowed to <\/p>\n
be   raised   after   25   years,   on   account   of   the <\/p>\n
inaction of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
23. We   do   not,   therefore,   find   any   reason   to <\/p>\n
interfere   with   the   judgment   either   of   the   learned <\/p>\n
Single Judge or of the Division Bench of the High <\/p>\n
Court   and   the   Special   Leave   Petition   is, <\/p>\n
accordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
24. There will, however, be no order as to costs.  <\/p>\n
                               …………………………………………J.
\n                               (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                               …………………………………………J.
\n                               (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
\nNew Delhi
\nDated: 15.03.2011<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)No.27278 OF 2009 Delhi Development Authority … Petitioner Vs. 2 Ram Prakash … Respondent J U D G M E N T […]<\/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-92924","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011 - 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\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-07T11:48:29+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T11:48:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2618,\"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\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T11:48:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011 - 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\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-07T11:48:29+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T11:48:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011"},"wordCount":2618,"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\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011","name":"Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T11:48:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-devt-authority-vs-ram-prakash-on-15-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Devt.Authority vs Ram Prakash on 15 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/92924","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=92924"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92924\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}