{"id":93782,"date":"2008-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-11-01T08:53:28","modified_gmt":"2018-11-01T03:23:28","slug":"state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008<\/div>\n
C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and\nR.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and                                     1\nC.R.No.3276 of 2001\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA                                AT\n                  CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                 C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and\n                                 R.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and\n                                 C.R.No.3276 of 2001\n                                 Date of decision 10.12.2008.\n\n\nState of Haryana & Ors.\n                                           ...... Petitioners\n  versus\n\nJeewan Dhar Jain & Ors.\n                                           ...... Respondents.<\/pre>\n
CORAM :- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.\n<\/p>\n
         HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL.\n<\/p>\n
\nPresent :-    Mr. J.R.Mittal, Senior Advocate with
\n              Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the applicant-respondents.
\n              Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for the HUDA.\n<\/p>\n
              Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl.AG, Haryana for the petitioners.<\/p>\n
L.N.MITTAL.J.\n<\/p>\n
              In view of order dated 14.7.2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
application bearing C.M.No.13836 CII of 2008 is allowed subject to all just<\/p>\n
exceptions.\n<\/p>\n
              Review application No.88-CII of 2002 in civil revision<\/p>\n
No.3276 of 2001 is taken up for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
              Land of applicant-respondent nos.1 to 4 was acquired.     On<\/p>\n
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short – the<\/p>\n
Act), compensation amount was enhanced. In first appeal, compensation<\/p>\n
was further enhanced by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
 C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and
\nR.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and                                    2<\/span>
\nC.R.No.3276 of 2001<\/p>\n
            Land owners applicant-respondent nos.1 to 4 filed execution<\/p>\n
petition for recovery of the enhanced compensation amount.            Learned<\/p>\n
executing Court vide order dated 27.1.2001 held that the decree-holders are<\/p>\n
entitled to get interest on additional amount (payable under Section 23(1-A)<\/p>\n
of the Act) and also on solatium. It was also held that the decree-holders<\/p>\n
can appropriate the amount, paid or deposited by the judgment debtors,<\/p>\n
firstly towards interest and costs and then towards the principal.<\/p>\n
            Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the executing Court, State<\/p>\n
of Haryana and Collector filed Civil Revision No.3276 of 2001 in this<\/p>\n
Court. Learned Single Judge of this Court found that the following three<\/p>\n
important questions of law arose for adjudication in the revision petition :-<\/p>\n
               “(i) Whether the claimants\/land-owners are entitled to claim<\/p>\n
               interest on solatium ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (ii) Whether interest is to be calculated on the basis of<\/p>\n
               enhancement ordered by Reference Court\/High Court or the<\/p>\n
               Apex Court i.e. only on the excess amount of compensation<\/p>\n
               of the same has to be calculated after deducting the amount<\/p>\n
               of compensation already paid ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (iii) Whether claimants\/land-owners do have the right to<\/p>\n
               appropriate the amount deposited by the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
               Collector as per their own discretion or the same has to be<\/p>\n
               paid in view of the Scheme of the Act ?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              On question No.1,      it was conceded by learned Advocate<\/p>\n
General, Haryana that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case<\/p>\n
titled Sunder vs. Union of India & others JT<\/a> 2001(8) Supreme Court 130,
\n C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and
\nR.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and                                   3<\/span>
\nC.R.No.3276 of 2001<\/p>\n
the decree holders are entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount<\/p>\n
including solatium. Accordingly, finding of the Executing Court on this<\/p>\n
question was affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
              On question No.2 , it was found that the amount earlier paid<\/p>\n
cannot be adjusted towards interest because that amount was paid towards<\/p>\n
the compensation by the Collector as determined by him or by the court and<\/p>\n
in case the amount is further enhanced by the Reference Court or the High<\/p>\n
Court\/Supreme Court, in that situation, the claimants could not be allowed<\/p>\n
to turn around and to say that the amount received earlier will be adjusted<\/p>\n
towards interest and not towards the principal amount of compensation.<\/p>\n
              On question No.3, the learned Single Judge, after referring to<\/p>\n
the Scheme of the Act and relying on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in the case of Prem Nath Kapoor vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of<\/p>\n
India Limited and others<\/a> (1996) 2 S.C.C. 71 concluded that the order under<\/p>\n
revision was not sustainable insofar as it provided for making appropriation<\/p>\n
of the amount deposited by the Collector, first towards costs, then interest,<\/p>\n
then additional amount and remaining to be adjusted towards the principal<\/p>\n
amount and the claimants have no right to appropriate the amount which is<\/p>\n
deposited strictly in accordance with the Award firstly towards<\/p>\n
compensation and then the other benefits accruing out of the compensation<\/p>\n
to be paid.\n<\/p>\n
              In view of the aforesaid conclusions, impugned order of the<\/p>\n
Executing Court was set aside by allowing the revision petition vide<\/p>\n
judgment dated 25.10.2001 by which bunch of similar revision petitions<\/p>\n
was disposed of, and the Executing Court was directed to disburse the
\n C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and
\nR.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and                                  4<\/span>
\nC.R.No.3276 of 2001<\/p>\n
compensation amount in the following manner :-<\/p>\n
           “(i) That the claimants shall be entitled to interest on solatium<\/p>\n
           in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder’s<\/p>\n
           case (supra).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii) That the interest shall be calculated only on the excess<\/p>\n
            amount of compensation determined under Section 23(1) and<\/p>\n
            not on the amount already determined by the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
            Officer under Section 11 and paid to the party or deposited into<\/p>\n
            the Court or determined under Section 26 or Section 54 and<\/p>\n
            deposited into the Court. The amount already paid, in no case,<\/p>\n
            shall be adjusted towards the interest accrued        on excess<\/p>\n
            compensation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (iii)That the claimants shall not be allowed to appropriate the<\/p>\n
              amount deposited by the Collector at their discretion and<\/p>\n
              appropriation and payment shall be made strictly in view of<\/p>\n
              the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath<\/p>\n
              Kapur’s case (supra).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Respondent nos.1 to 4 filed review application for review of<\/p>\n
aforesaid judgment dated 25.10.2001 of the learned Single Judge. However,<\/p>\n
a Division Bench of this court, vide judgment dated 18.10.2005, dismissed<\/p>\n
the bunch review applications.\n<\/p>\n
            Feeling aggrieved, the decree-holders preferred Civil Appeal<\/p>\n
No.4365 of 2008 in Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide<\/p>\n
judgment dated 14.7.2008 set aside judgment and order dated 18.10.2005 of<\/p>\n
this Court (whereby review applications were dismissed in the bunch of
\n C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and
\nR.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and                                   5<\/span>
\nC.R.No.3276 of 2001<\/p>\n
civil revision petitions) and remitted the matter back to this Court for<\/p>\n
decision in the light of observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made by a<\/p>\n
Constitution Bench in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India<\/a> (2006)<\/p>\n
8 Supreme Court Cases 457.       It was also observed by the Hon’ble Apex<\/p>\n
Court in judgment dated 14.7.2008 that in the event High Court feels that<\/p>\n
while deciding the review petition, it would be appropriate for it to take the<\/p>\n
civil revision cases as well, it will be open to the High Court to take up the<\/p>\n
review petitions also along with the civil revision cases treating the orders<\/p>\n
passed by the High court in revision as set aside.<\/p>\n
            Accordingly, review petitions as well as civil revisions have<\/p>\n
been taken up for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
            We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
records.\n<\/p>\n
            It is conceded position that the decree-holders are entitled to<\/p>\n
interest on solatium as well. It has been submitted that the only question<\/p>\n
that remains to be determined is regarding the manner of appropriation of<\/p>\n
the amount deposited by the State\/judgment-debtors.<\/p>\n
            In so far as the question of appropriation of the amount<\/p>\n
deposited by the judgment debtors is concerned, the same is not res integra.<\/p>\n
This question has been dealt with in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
case of Prem Nath Kapur (supra). Even the Constitution Bench in the case<\/p>\n
of Gurpreet Singh (supra) did not over-rule the ratio of law laid down in the<\/p>\n
case of Prem Nath Kapur (supra) on this question. The same was rather<\/p>\n
held to be justified. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case<\/p>\n
of Gurpreet Singh (supra) as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and
\nR.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and                                 6<\/span>
\nC.R.No.3276 of 2001<\/p>\n
           “51. Prem Nath Kapur also indicates that when an award-<\/p>\n
           decree is passed specifying the amounts under different heads<\/p>\n
           like the amount under Section 23(1), the amount under section<\/p>\n
           23(2), the amount under Section 23(1-A) and the interest under<\/p>\n
           Section 28 and the judgment-debtor makes a deposit of<\/p>\n
           specified sums under these different heads, it will amount to<\/p>\n
           the judgment-debtor intimating the decree-holder as to how the<\/p>\n
           sum deposited is to be applied in discharge of the obligation of<\/p>\n
           the judgment-debtor.    Once a     decree-holder receives the<\/p>\n
           payment of the sums thus deposited, he would be accepting the<\/p>\n
           appropriation made by the judgment-debtor under the award-<\/p>\n
           decree in the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act. This part of<\/p>\n
           the reasoning in Prem Nath Kapur is, of course, also based on<\/p>\n
           the reasoning that there is some inconsistency in Order 21 Rule<\/p>\n
           1 of the Code and the scheme of the Act. Prem Nath Kapur<\/p>\n
           also indicates that when the decree itself specifies the amount<\/p>\n
           payable under different heads ( the decree has to do so under<\/p>\n
           Section 26 of the Act) and amounts are deposited towards those<\/p>\n
           different heads, the appropriation would be on the basis of the<\/p>\n
           direction under the decree which must be taken to be one for<\/p>\n
           crediting the various sums paid under particular heads. On the<\/p>\n
           scheme of the Act, especially the wordings of section 34 and<\/p>\n
           section 28 of the Act, it is not possible to say that the said<\/p>\n
           approach made in Prem Nath Kapur is erroneous or is<\/p>\n
           unreasonable or is not (sic) a line of approach that is not
\n C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and
\nR.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and                                      7<\/span>
\nC.R.No.3276 of 2001<\/p>\n
             warranted. Therefore, when the judgment-debtor State makes<\/p>\n
             a deposit along with the calculation appropriating distinct sums<\/p>\n
             towards various heads of compensation as awarded by the<\/p>\n
             Reference Court or by the appellate court in the appellate<\/p>\n
             decree, and the amount is received by the decree-holder, the<\/p>\n
             decree-holder must be taken to be not entitled to seek an<\/p>\n
             appropriation as if the     judgment-debtor has not made any<\/p>\n
             intimation and that he is entitled to appropriate at his volition.<\/p>\n
             Considering the scheme of compensation under the Act in the<\/p>\n
             context of the specific nature of the items specifically referred<\/p>\n
             to in section 23 of the Act, we are of the view that the approach<\/p>\n
             adopted in Prem Nath Kapur is justified……….”<\/p>\n
             In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for both the parties<\/p>\n
submitted that the matter may be remitted to the executing Court for passing<\/p>\n
fresh order in accordance with law on the question of appropriation of the<\/p>\n
amount deposited\/paid by the judgment-debtors.<\/p>\n
             In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel<\/p>\n
for both the parties, we dispose of all the connected review petitions and<\/p>\n
the civil revision petitions with the following directions :-<\/p>\n
             (i)   the claimants\/decree-holders shall be entitled to interest on<\/p>\n
             additional amount and solatium.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (ii) the Executing Courts shall pass fresh orders in accordance<\/p>\n
             with law on the question of appropriation of the amount<\/p>\n
             paid\/deposited by the judgment-debtors.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (iii) the parties are directed to appear before the Executing
\n C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and
\nR.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and                                 8<\/span>
\nC.R.No.3276 of 2001<\/p>\n
           Courts for further proceedings on 29.1.2009. The Executing<\/p>\n
           Courts may dispose of the matter expeditiously.<\/p>\n
                                              ( L.N. MITTAL )
\n                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                          (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
\n                                                 JUDGE
\nDecember 10, 2008
\nsv\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008 C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and R.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and 1 C.R.No.3276 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.13833-36 of 2008 in\/and R.A.No.88-CII of 2002 in\/and C.R.No.3276 of 2001 Date of decision 10.12.2008. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008 - 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\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-01T03:23:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-01T03:23:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1820,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-01T03:23:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008 - 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\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-01T03:23:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-01T03:23:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008"},"wordCount":1820,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008","name":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-01T03:23:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jeewan-dhar-jain-ors-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jeewan Dhar Jain & Ors on 10 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/93782","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=93782"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93782\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}