{"id":123858,"date":"2010-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-19T15:10:12","modified_gmt":"2017-10-19T09:40:12","slug":"arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 75 OF 2010\n\n    1.   Arjun S\/o Shankar Waghmare\n         Age 60 yrs, Occu. Agri,\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n         r\/o Bhabalgaon, Tq. Kallam,\n         Dist. Osmanabad.\n\n    2.   Babruwan S\/o Shankar Waghmare\n         Age 64 yrs, Occu. Agri.,\n\n\n\n\n                                \n         R\/o as above.                                 .. APPLICANTS\n                                                       (Ori.Claimant)\n                     ig         VERSUS\n\n    1)   The State of Maharashtra\n                   \n         Through the Collector, Osmanabad.\n         (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader\n         High Court of Judicature of Bombay\n         Bench at Aurangabad)               ...RESPONDENT.\n      \n\n                                  ...\n    Mr. M.B. Kolpe h\/f         Mr. S.A.\n                                     Wakure,                Advocate          for\n   \n\n\n\n    applicant.\n    Mr. D.R. Korde,A.G.P. For respondent\n\n\n                                CORAM :- S.S. SHINDE, J\n\n\n\n\n\n                                DATE   : 27th AUGUST, 2010.\n\n    JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    1.          Heard counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          Rule.   Rule   made       returnable      forthwith.           By<\/p>\n
    consent of the parties, heard finally.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          The revision petitioners\/applicants are the<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
    owner of land Gut No. 316, admeasuring 1 Hector 31 R,<\/p>\n
    situated    at    Village      Bhabulgaon,            Tq.Kallam,         Dist.\n<\/p>\n
    Osmanabad. The above mentioned land was acquired by<\/p>\n
    the respondent for the purpose of percolation tank at<\/p>\n
    Village     Bhabulgaon,       Tq.       Kallm.        Thereafter,          land<\/p>\n
    acquisition      proceedings      were     initiated,        and     finally<\/p>\n
    Award was passed.\n<\/p>\n
    4.            The revision petitioners being dissatisfied<\/p>\n
    by the Award, filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 248<\/p>\n
    of 2000 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer.\n<\/p>\n
    The Special Land Acquisition Officer after scrutiny,<\/p>\n
    forwarded the Land Acquisition Reference in the Civil<\/p>\n
    Court   for its adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
    5.            The learned IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior<\/p>\n
    Division,    Osmanabad,      dismissed       the      Land    Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Reference, on two fold grounds. Firstly, the revision<\/p>\n
    petitioners      who   are   the        owners\/claimants          have       not<\/p>\n
    adduced any evidence to prove that their lands were<\/p>\n
    irrigated one, and they were taking the crops like<\/p>\n
    sugarcane, sunflower, groundnut etc. in the acquired<\/p>\n
    land.   Further     the     claimants       have      not    adduced         any<\/p>\n
    documentary      evidence    in     support      of    their      pleading.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Secondly, claimants have not added acquiring body i.e.<\/p>\n
    The Executive Engineer,Irrigation Division, Osmanabad,<\/p>\n
    as party to the claim. Therefore, the claim is bad, on<\/p>\n
    the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          The     learned        counsel       appearing            for       the<\/p>\n
    revision petitioners, vehemently argued that the Court<\/p>\n
    below should not have dismissed the reference, merely<\/p>\n
    on technicalities. It is further submitted that the<\/p>\n
    Land Acquisition Reference, ought to have been decided<\/p>\n
    on   merits.      The    learned     counsel       appearing           for      the<\/p>\n
    revision    petitioners,         invited     my        attention        to      the<\/p>\n
    grounds     in    the      Civil    Revision           Application,             and<\/p>\n
    submitted      that      the     impugned        Judgment         and        Order<\/p>\n
    deserves     to     be     set     aside.    In        support          of      his<\/p>\n
    contention,       the     learned    counsel        for       the      revision<\/p>\n
    petitioners, placed reliance on the reported Judgment<\/p>\n
    of this Court, in case of “Kawadu Madhav Bansod Vs.<\/p>\n
    State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 2004(4)<\/p>\n
    Bom.C.R.    495”.        Relying    on     the     said       Judgment          the<\/p>\n
    learned      counsel           appearing         for       the         revision<\/p>\n
    petitioners, would urge that the facts of the case in<\/p>\n
    hand and the facts of the case which is cited supra<\/p>\n
    are similar, and in that case this Court has taken a<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
    view that the reference cannot be rejected, only for<\/p>\n
    the reason that the revision petitioners have failed<\/p>\n
    to adduce     any evidence. The learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
    for the revision petitioners, invited my attention                            to<\/p>\n
    para No. 7 in the case of ” Kawadu Madhav Bansod V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    State   of    Maharashtra        &    another”      cited        supra       and<\/p>\n
    submitted     that    in    the       interest      of     justice,          the<\/p>\n
    impugned Judgment and Order deserves to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    7.<\/p>\n
                 On the other hand, learned A.G.P. submitted<\/p>\n
    that theReference Court, after giving sufficient time<\/p>\n
    to   the     revision      petitioners,       and        after      revision<\/p>\n
    petitioners      heard      at       length   had        rejected          Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition Reference and the impugned Judgment and<\/p>\n
    Order cannot be faulted. Therefore, the Civil Revision<\/p>\n
    Application is       devoid of any merits and same deserves<\/p>\n
    to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    8.           I have heard, the learned counsels appearing<\/p>\n
    for the parties at length, and I am of the considered<\/p>\n
    opinion that the impugned Judgment and Order                        deserves<\/p>\n
    to be interfered with and required to be quashed and<\/p>\n
    set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                 At the outset it has to be clarified that the<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
    present Civil Revision Application is maintainable, in<\/p>\n
    view of the observations made in para No. 9 in case of<\/p>\n
    “Kawadu     Madhav      Bansod       V\/s.     State       of   Maharashtra            &<\/p>\n
    another” cited supra. This Court in the above said<\/p>\n
    case in para No. 9 has observed thus :-\n<\/p>\n
                 ”       Since       the        Civil     Judge,         Senior
\n          Division, Yevatmal dismissed the reference of
\n          the    present          revision        petitioner           without<\/p>\n
          considering         the        material       on     record,        the
\n          matter needs to be remanded to that Court for<\/p>\n
          passing       the       order     in    the        light     of     the
\n          discussion made above. As the matter is being<\/p>\n
          remanded,         the    Civil        Judge    shall       also       be
\n          directed       to       give     an    opportunity           to     the
\n          revision petitioner and also to State to lead<\/p>\n
          evidence”.\n<\/p>\n
         In view of the above observations of this Court,<\/p>\n
    I    hold        that     Civil         Revision           Application              is<\/p>\n
    maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
    9.           Coming to the first contention of the Counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing     for       the    revision       petitioners,            that       Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition Reference should not have been rejected,<\/p>\n
    on the ground of not filing documentary evidence is<\/p>\n
    concerned, this Court in case of “Kawadu Madhav Bansod<\/p>\n
    V\/s. State of Maharashtra & another” cited supra, has<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
    taken        a    view     that     the     said        order       rejecting          the<\/p>\n
    reference on the ground of failure of the revision<\/p>\n
    petitioners to adduce evidence cannot be taken to be<\/p>\n
    adjudication, and therefore, same cannot be treated to<\/p>\n
    be an Award. Therefore, one of the ground i.e. no<\/p>\n
    documentary            evidence      is       filed        by       the       revision<\/p>\n
    petitioners, cannot be ground to reject the reference.\n<\/p>\n
    This Court in the case of “Kawadu Madhav Bansod V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    State of Maharashtra & another” cited supra in para<\/p>\n
    No. 7 has observed thus :-\n<\/p>\n
                     ”       It is true that the adjudication
\n            made by the Civil Court on the reference has
\n            to       be    regarded     as    an       award,       whether         an
\n            enhanced compensation is given or not. But<\/p>\n
            in that event the Court should consider the<\/p>\n
            material         on   record,     even      if     the      party       is
\n            absent and has failed to adduce evidence.
\n            Unless the material on record is considered<\/p>\n
            the       order       cannot      be       said        to      be       an
\n            adjudication. In the instant case the ground
\n            given for the dismissal of reference by the
\n            Civil Court is that the applicant (present<\/p>\n
            revision petitioner) remained absent and did
\n            not       adduce      any   evidence         to     show       that      a
\n            proper compensation was not paid to him and
\n            that      he     is   entitled        to    more      compensation
\n            than      paid.       The   above      order       clearly        shows
\n            that the reference was dismissed only for
\n            the       reason      of    failure        of     the       applicant<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
            (present           revision         petitioner)             to     adduce<\/p>\n
            evidence. Thus the material on record is not
\n            considered          by     the      Civil     Court.        It   is     not<\/p>\n
            considered           as        to    how      the       compensation
\n            awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was
\n            correct. So the order cannot be taken to be<\/p>\n
            an adjudication and therefore the the same
\n            cannot be treated to be an award. The order
\n            passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
\n            Yevatmal           also    cannot        be   treated         to     be    a<\/p>\n
            dismissal of the reference in default. The
\n            learned
\n            submitted<\/p>\n
                           Counsel
\n                                that
\n                                             for
\n                                           the
\n                                                     revision
\n                                                     case      could
\n                                                                        petitioner
\n                                                                             not      be
\n            dismissed in default also.”\n<\/p>\n
                  Therefore,            in      my   opinion,          the     Court       below<\/p>\n
    should not have rejected the reference, on the ground<\/p>\n
    of     failure        of    the     revision          petitioners           to     adduce<\/p>\n
    evidence.         Yet in another unreported Judgment in the<\/p>\n
    case     of   ”       Shri        Kamalkar          S\/o     Laxman         suryawanshi<\/p>\n
    V\/s.     State         of         Maharashtra,            in        Civil        Revision<\/p>\n
    Application No. 1965 of 2005 and in other two connected<\/p>\n
    matters,      this          Court        has      taken        a     similar           view.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,        I    have       no     hesitation,           to    hold      that      the<\/p>\n
    reference filed by the revision petitioners, should not<\/p>\n
    have been dismissed, merely on the ground of failure of<\/p>\n
    the revision petitioners to adduce evidence.\n<\/p>\n
    10.           Another reason                 to reject         the reference              is<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
    non-joinder            of      party          i.e.        acquiring          body.         The<\/p>\n
    acquiring         body        was       not    party        respondent,            in      the<\/p>\n
    proceedings pending in the Land Acquisition Reference.\n<\/p>\n
    In    this        respect,            the     Counsel        appearing           for       the<\/p>\n
    revision petitioners is justified in submitting that<\/p>\n
    the Land Acquisition Reference was filed in the year<\/p>\n
    2000 and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
    making       it     incumbent               upon     the         claimants         to      add<\/p>\n
    acquiring         body   ig as        party    to    the     reference          has      been<\/p>\n
    delivered, subsequently after filing this reference,<\/p>\n
    and   therefore,              the      learned           Judge    should        not      have<\/p>\n
    rejected reference on that ground.\n<\/p>\n
                       I     have         given        due    consideration            to      the<\/p>\n
    submissions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
    petitioners,            and       I    find    considerable             force       in     his<\/p>\n
    arguments.         The       Court       below       should        have      given       fair<\/p>\n
    opportunity            to     the       revision           petitioners           to      file<\/p>\n
    application            for impleading, acquiring body as a party<\/p>\n
    to the reference. It was possible for the reference<\/p>\n
    Court    to       ask       the       revision       petitioners           to     add      the<\/p>\n
    acquiring body as a party to the reference. Therefore,<\/p>\n
    in my opinion, the claim of the revision petitioners<\/p>\n
    should   not        have       been         discarded\/rejected,               merely        on<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
    technicalities of not adducing documentary evidence,<\/p>\n
    or   not     adding      acquiring        body   as    a    party       to      the<\/p>\n
    reference.         The     Court     below,        should        have       given<\/p>\n
    sufficient         and   full      opportunity        to     the       revision<\/p>\n
    petitioners         to   put-forth         their      case,       and       after<\/p>\n
    appreciating         their       contentions          at      length,           the<\/p>\n
    reference should have been decided.                         Therefore, the<\/p>\n
    impugned Judgment and Order dated 25th August, 2009 in<\/p>\n
    Land Acquisition Reference No. 248 of 2000 passed by<\/p>\n
    the Learned IInd, Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,<\/p>\n
    Osmanabad is quashed the matter is remanded back to<\/p>\n
    the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge civil Judge Senior<\/p>\n
    Division,     Osmanabad.            The    liberty     to     the      revision<\/p>\n
    petitioners to file application before the Court below<\/p>\n
    for adding the acquiring body as a party respondent to<\/p>\n
    the Land Acquisition Reference. The Concerned Court to<\/p>\n
    hear   the      Land     Acquisition         Reference         afresh.          The<\/p>\n
    Registry      to    send     back     the    record        and     proceeding<\/p>\n
    immediately to the concerned Court. Rule made absolute<\/p>\n
    in   above    terms.       The     Civil    Revision       Application           is<\/p>\n
    disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       [S.S. SHINDE, J]<\/p>\n
    SDM*75.10CRA.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:28 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 75 OF 2010 1. Arjun S\/o Shankar Waghmare Age 60 yrs, Occu. Agri, r\/o Bhabalgaon, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Babruwan S\/o […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nArjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-19T09:40:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-19T09:40:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1542,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-19T09:40:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 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":"Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-19T09:40:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-19T09:40:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010"},"wordCount":1542,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","name":"Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-19T09:40:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arjun vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 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\/123858","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=123858"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123858\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}