{"id":105570,"date":"2010-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-07T02:28:03","modified_gmt":"2015-05-06T20:58:03","slug":"state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/57\/2010\t 10\/ 10\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 57 of 2010\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 72 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nYAKUB\nISMAIL YUSUF DASU - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nP. K. JANI GOVERNMENT PLEADERN with Mr. U. A. Trivedi Add. GP \nfor\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR MM SAIYED for Defendant(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 15\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned Government Pleader Mr. PK Jani with learned Add. GP Mr.<br \/>\n\tUmesh Trivedi on behalf of appellant, learned advocate Mr. MM Saiyed<br \/>\n\tappearing for respondent claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tappellant has challenged award passed by Reference Court in Land<br \/>\n\tAcquisition Reference cases no. 2749\/98 to 2764\/98 exh 65 decided on<br \/>\n\t8\/8\/2008.  The Reference Court, Bharuch has awarded Rs. 27.50ps in<br \/>\n\tLand Acquisition case no. 95\/96 being an additional amount of<br \/>\n\tcompensation over and above awarded by Land Acquisition Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tAdd. GP Mr. Trivedi submitted that lands of original claimants<br \/>\n\tsituated at village Sarod, Taluka Jambusar District Bharuch for a<br \/>\n\tpurpose of construction of Sarod minor canal. The section 4<br \/>\n\tnotification is dated 14\/12\/1995 and section 6 notification is dated<br \/>\n\t23\/3\/1996.  The Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award in Land<br \/>\n\tAcquisition case no. 95\/96 on 28\/7\/1997 awarded Rs. 2.20ps per sqmt.<br \/>\n\tAgainst which, claimants have aggrieved and filed references u\/s 18<br \/>\n\tof Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court has passed an award on<br \/>\n\t8\/8\/2008 vide exh 65 which is challenged by appellant State.\n<\/p>\n<p>He<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that Reference Court has committed gross error in not<br \/>\n\tconsidering sale transaction of last five years, which were<br \/>\n\tconsidered by Land Acquisition Officer.  The claimants have not<br \/>\n\tproduced any genuine documents to prove or to show that they are<br \/>\n\tentitled more compensation.  He submitted that it is a duty of<br \/>\n\tclaimants to prove that their lands are more valuable than<br \/>\n\tcompensation awarded by Land Acquisition officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>He<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that Reference Court has committed an error in relying<br \/>\n\tupon exh 57. There is nothing on record to show that lands referred<br \/>\n\tin exh 57 is similar to that of land in present reference.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, same can not be relied.\n<\/p>\n<p>He<br \/>\n\talso raised contention that Reference Court has not given cogent<br \/>\n\treason why Reference Court has differ with award passed by Land<br \/>\n\tAcquisition Officer.  The best method is to consider sale instances<br \/>\n\tand best evidence to prove is what a willing purchaser would pay for<br \/>\n\tland under acquisition. The market value is price property may fetch<br \/>\n\tin open market if sold by willing seller unaffected by special needs<br \/>\n\tof particular purchaser.\n<\/p>\n<p>He<br \/>\n\talso submitted that village Nodhana is also nearby village and vide<br \/>\n\texh 29 previous award in respect to village Nodhana was produced on<br \/>\n\trecord.  Even though, same has been ignored by Reference Court<br \/>\n\trelying upon map exh 64. He submitted that map exh 64 which was<br \/>\n\tproduced on record not giving correct and clear detail about nearby<br \/>\n\tvillage Nodhana and Kavli and also not include survey number which<br \/>\n\thas been acquired in present acquisition by State Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,<br \/>\n\the submitted that land belonging to claimants must have to be nearby<br \/>\n\teither village Kavli or Nodhana.  That part must have to be properly<br \/>\n\tconsidered by Reference Court, but that aspect has not been taken<br \/>\n\tinto account by Reference Court. According to him, Reference Court<br \/>\n\thas committed gross error in awarding an additional amount of<br \/>\n\tcompensation in favour of claimant while relying upon exh 57<br \/>\n\tprevious award of village Kavli.  Except that no other submission is<br \/>\n\tmade by learned Add. GP Mr. Trivedi before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr. Saiyed appearing for respondent claimants submitted<br \/>\n\tthat before Reference Court, none was examined by appellant being a<br \/>\n\trebuttal evidence of claimants.  He also submitted that before<br \/>\n\tReference Court, no detailed map produced by appellant in respect to<br \/>\n\tvillage Nodhana and Kavli.\n<\/p>\n<p>He<br \/>\n\talso submitted that no such contention raised by appellant before<br \/>\n\tReference Court that in comparison to nearby village Kavli, in fact,<br \/>\n\tvillage Nodhana is very near to village Sarod.  Therefore, that<br \/>\n\taspect has been rightly not considered by Reference Court.<br \/>\n\tAccording to him, village Nodhana is having distance about 4<br \/>\n\tkilometer from village Sarod and village Kavli is having two<br \/>\n\tkilometer distance from village Sarod.  That has been clear from map<br \/>\n\texh 64 which has been rightly relied upon by Reference Court and<br \/>\n\talso there is difference of 14 days in publication of section 4<br \/>\n\tnotification.  In respect to Land Acquisition case no. 99\/96,<br \/>\n\tsection 4 notification is dated 30\/11\/1995 and in respect to facts<br \/>\n\tof present case, section 4 notification is dated 14\/12\/1995.  So,<br \/>\n\tdifference in respect to section 4 notification between two village<br \/>\n\ti.e. Sarod and Kavli are only 14 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr. Saiyed submitted that Reference Court has rightly<br \/>\n\trelied upon exh 57, for that, otherside has not produced rebuttal<br \/>\n\tevidence on record and Reference Court has rightly relied upon<br \/>\n\tevidence of claimant.  Therefore, no error is committed by Reference<br \/>\n\tCourt which would require interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave considered submission made by both learned advocates and I have<br \/>\n\tperused award passed by Reference Court.  Before Reference Court,<br \/>\n\tLand Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 2.20ps per sqmt against<br \/>\n\tclaim of claimants Rs. 70\/-.  The appellant has filed reply before<br \/>\n\tReference Court vide exh 6. Thereafter, issues have been framed by<br \/>\n\tReference Court vide exh 4.  On behalf of claimant one Yakub Ismail<br \/>\n\tYusuf Dasu exh 13, one Rameshchandra Bhaskar Rao Secretary of APMC<br \/>\n\texh 22 were examined and vide exh 23, price list was produced on<br \/>\n\trecord for a period 1991-92 to 1999-2000. The documentary evidence<br \/>\n\tvide exh 34 to exh 54, village form 7\/12 was produced on record and<br \/>\n\tvide exh 55 village form no. 16 also produced in respect to village<br \/>\n\tSarod.  Thereafter, evidence of Yakub Ismail Yusuf Dasu has been<br \/>\n\tconsidered by Reference Court. The claimants have proved before<br \/>\n\tReference Court that their lands are having potential value,<br \/>\n\tfertility and utility and they were getting various crops from<br \/>\n\tagricultural land in all three seasons and they were earning from<br \/>\n\tagricultural land.  This facts have been discussed by Reference<br \/>\n\tCourt in para 8 while deciding issue no. 1, 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tclaimant was cross examined by appellant.  The advocate of claimant<br \/>\n\thas relied upon previous award in respect to village Kavli and both<br \/>\n\tvillage are nearby village means adjoining Simada and lands<br \/>\n\tbelonging to both villages are having similar potential value and<br \/>\n\tfertility.  In previous award of village Kavli, in land reference<br \/>\n\tcase no. 2424\/98 exh 57, Rs. 30\/- has been awarded as an additional<br \/>\n\tamount of compensation and there is a difference of 14 days between<br \/>\n\tsection 4 notification of village Sarod and village Kavli.  On<br \/>\n\tbehalf of appellant, reliance is placed on record that village<br \/>\n\tNodhana is near to village Sarod and in Land Reference case no.<br \/>\n\t1098\/1993 exh 29 previous award relied, where Rs. 10.80ps has been<br \/>\n\tawarded as market price of lands acquired by State Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tsubmissions made by both learned advocates have been considered by<br \/>\n\tReference Court and thereafter considering evidence of claimants. No<br \/>\n\toral evidence led by appellant. According to map exh 64, Reference<br \/>\n\tCourt has considered previous award of village Kavli exh 57 because<br \/>\n\taccording to Reference Court, village Kavli is more nearer to<br \/>\n\tvillage Sarod in comparison to village Nodhana.  This finding is<br \/>\n\tgiven by Reference Court on the basis of evidence of claimant and<br \/>\n\tthere is no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant and contention<br \/>\n\twhich has been raised by learned Add. GP Mr. Trivedi to the effect<br \/>\n\tthat map exh 64 is not specifically covered survey number which was<br \/>\n\tacquired by State Government in respect to village Sarod.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, previous award of village Nodhana exh 29 is wrongly not<br \/>\n\trelied by Reference Court because near village is to be considered<br \/>\n\ton the basis of survey number which was acquired and not to consider<br \/>\n\tentire village.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tsubmission made before this Court not made by appellant before<br \/>\n\tReference Court, otherwise, Reference Court must have to consider<br \/>\n\tsuch technical submission while deciding references.  The Reference<br \/>\n\tCourt has considered that village Kavli is very near to village<br \/>\n\tSarod in comparison to village Nodhana.  Accordingly, amount awarded<br \/>\n\tby Land Acquisition Officer has been deducted from Rs. 30\/- and an<br \/>\n\tadditional amount comes to  Rs. 27.50\/-.  On that basis, an<br \/>\n\tadditional amount of compensation per sqmt Rs. 27.50 has been<br \/>\n\tawarded with all other consequential statutory benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>According<br \/>\n\tto my opinion, contention which has been raised by learned Add. GP<br \/>\n\tMr. Trivedi can not be accepted because such submission was not made<br \/>\n\tat all before Reference Court.  The appellant has not produced any<br \/>\n\trebuttal evidence before Reference Court.  The appellant has not<br \/>\n\tproduced entire map covering village Sarod and village Nodhana and<br \/>\n\tvillage Kavli before this Court.  The map which was produced by<br \/>\n\tclaimant exh 64 i.e. in respect to village Sarod only which has been<br \/>\n\trightly relied by Reference Court because it has not been objected<br \/>\n\tby appellant before Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,<br \/>\n\tReference Court has not committed any error while relying upon exh<br \/>\n\t57 previous award of village Kavli which is near to village Sarod<br \/>\n\tand difference of 14 days in respect to section 4 notification of<br \/>\n\tvillage Sarod and Kavli has been properly considered by Reference<br \/>\n\tCourt.  On that basis, an additional amount of compensation has been<br \/>\n\tworked out after deducting amount awarded by Land Acquisition<br \/>\n\tOfficer can not consider to be erroneous finding.  On the contrary,<br \/>\n\tReference Court has rightly examined matter based on legal evidence<br \/>\n\tand appellant has not produced any rebuttal evidence means there is<br \/>\n\tno map produced by appellant before Reference Court against map exh<br \/>\n\t64 produced by claimants.  The finding given by Reference Court can<br \/>\n\tnot consider to be baseless and perverse.  The reasoning given by<br \/>\n\tReference Court is with application of mind and in absence of<br \/>\n\tevidence from other side appellant, Reference Court has rightly<br \/>\n\texamined matter based on legal evidence.  For that, no interference<br \/>\n\tis required by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Hence,<br \/>\n\tthere is no substance in present group of appeal, all appeals are<br \/>\n\tdismissed. No order as to costs.  Decree is to be drawn immediately.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tacquisition made by State Government in present case is of 1995,<br \/>\n\tmore than 15 years have passed.  The claimants are not able to<br \/>\n\treceived any amount of compensation from appellant.  Therefore, in<br \/>\n\tinterest of justice on being request made by learned advocate Mr.<br \/>\n\tSaiyed, it is directed to appellant to deposit entire awarded<br \/>\n\tamounts together with costs and interest with all consequential<br \/>\n\tstatutory benefits before Reference Court, Bharuch within a period<br \/>\n\tof two months from the date of receiving copy of this order.  After<br \/>\n\trealizing said amounts from appellant, it is directed to Reference<br \/>\n\tCourt, Bharuch to pay such amount, which are available to each<br \/>\n\trespondent by A\/c payee cheque in their name after proper<br \/>\n\tverification.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,<br \/>\nJ)<\/p>\n<p>asma<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/57\/2010 10\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 57 of 2010 To FIRST APPEAL No. 72 of 2010 ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 1 &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus YAKUB ISMAIL [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-06T20:58:03+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-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-06T20:58:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1692,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-06T20:58:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-06T20:58:03+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-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-06T20:58:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010"},"wordCount":1692,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010","name":"State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-06T20:58:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-yakub-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Yakub on 15 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105570","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=105570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105570\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}