{"id":133822,"date":"2009-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-10-25T11:05:49","modified_gmt":"2016-10-25T05:35:49","slug":"state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\nS\/3\n               S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948\/2006.\n                   State of Rajasthan Vs. Kana Ram & Ors.\n\n\n\n      Date of Order :: 24th March 2009.\n\n            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI\n\n      Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, GC, for the petitioners.\n      Mr. S.D.N. Bhatt ]\n      Mr. S.G. Ojha    ], for the respondents.\n                                     ....\n\n      BY THE COURT:<\/pre>\n
            By the order dated 03.04.2001 as drawn in Reference<\/p>\n
      Application No.16\/1994, the Collector, Jodhpur proceeded to<\/p>\n
      make a reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside<\/p>\n
      mutation No. 314 as effected in relation to the land comprised<\/p>\n
      in khasra Nos.910\/747 and 910\/1\/747 at Khema-ka-kua,<\/p>\n
      Tehsil Jodhpur.\n<\/p>\n
             On the basis of a complaint made to him, the learned<\/p>\n
      Collector noticed that the father of the non-applicants<\/p>\n
      (respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein) had been a trespasser over<\/p>\n
      the said land comprised in khasra Nos.910\/747 and 910\/1\/747<\/p>\n
      that was a Government land falling within the municipal limits;<\/p>\n
      and that the Tehsildar, Jodhpur adopted proceedings under<\/p>\n
      Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (‘the Act<\/p>\n
      of 1956’) and directed dispossession while imposing fine but<\/p>\n
      then, the said proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of
\n                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
1956 were dropped upon taking of an appeal to the Additional<\/p>\n
Collector, Jodhpur. The learned Collector observed that<\/p>\n
merely for dropping of the proceedings under Section 91 of the<\/p>\n
Act of 1956, the non-applicants did not acquire khatedri rights<\/p>\n
in the land in question but during a revenue campaign, the<\/p>\n
Assistant Collector proceeded to issue a sanction in favour of<\/p>\n
the non-applicants on the basis of the order passed in the<\/p>\n
said appeal arising out of the proceedings under Section 91 of<\/p>\n
the Act of 1956 that led to the disputed mutation No.314. The<\/p>\n
learned Collector opined that such a communication from the<\/p>\n
Assistant Collector was not authorised by law; and the<\/p>\n
disputed mutation No.314 having not been effected on the<\/p>\n
basis of a competent order, was liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
         The reference so made was taken up for consideration<\/p>\n
by the Board of Revenue in Reference Case No. 582\/2001. It<\/p>\n
was argued before the Board of Revenue in support of the<\/p>\n
reference that a similar nature Reference Case No. 266\/1986:<\/p>\n
State Vs.     Ganga Ram had already been allowed wherein<\/p>\n
mutation No. 315 dated 03.07.1979 was ordered to be set<\/p>\n
aside.     It was, however, contended on behalf of the non-<\/p>\n
applicants that the land in question in the present case was<\/p>\n
earlier comprised in khasra No. 747\/20 and in its relation, the<\/p>\n
Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur, while allowing an application
\n                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
moved under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955<\/p>\n
(‘the Act of 1955’), declared khatedari rights in favour of the<\/p>\n
father of the non-applicants by the order dated 28.11.1956.<\/p>\n
The non-applicants contended that the said one was an order<\/p>\n
passed by the competent court under Section 15 (5) of the Act<\/p>\n
of 1955 and had attained finality. The non-applicants further<\/p>\n
contended that themselves and their ancestors had been in<\/p>\n
possession of the land in question even before Svt. Year<\/p>\n
1997 and referred to the documentary evidence in that regard.<\/p>\n
It was asserted that the mutation in question had not been<\/p>\n
sanctioned merely on the basis of dropping of the proceedings<\/p>\n
under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 but was essentially based<\/p>\n
on the order passed under Section 15 of the Act of 1955. It<\/p>\n
was also pointed out that after the mutation in question, the<\/p>\n
land had been permitted to be divided; and further mutation<\/p>\n
No. 526 dated 25.08.1986 had been effected in that regard.<\/p>\n
While submitting that the reference was a highly belated one<\/p>\n
and was made only      on the basis of a complaint that was<\/p>\n
lodged for personal enmity, the non-applicants also pointed<\/p>\n
out that the Board of Revenue had dismissed the similar<\/p>\n
nature reference cases on 07.09.1987.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned Member of the Board found that the
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
contentions as urged before him by the counsel for the non-<\/p>\n
applicants were definitely urged before the Collector, Jodhpur<\/p>\n
but while making the reference, the learned Collector did not<\/p>\n
dilate on such points nor even examined the evidence. The<\/p>\n
learned Member also found that the order as passed under<\/p>\n
Section 15 of the Act of 1955 granting khatedari rights to the<\/p>\n
non-applicants and their father was neither taken into<\/p>\n
consideration by the Collector in his reference order nor was it<\/p>\n
shown if the said order was ever challenged. The learned<\/p>\n
Member also referred to the fact that upon the land in question<\/p>\n
falling within the municipal limits, the Urban Improvement<\/p>\n
Trust, Jodhpur did move an application to the Collector<\/p>\n
concerned for making a reference but then, such an<\/p>\n
application came to be rejected as withdrawn.<\/p>\n
       The learned Member of the Board of Revenue noticed<\/p>\n
the facts that the mutation in question was effected as back as<\/p>\n
on 28.12.1978 and ever since the year 1979, the land stood<\/p>\n
recorded in the names of the non-applicants; and also found<\/p>\n
correct the fact that further mutation No. 526 was effected after<\/p>\n
the division was agreed to by the Tehsildar in his order dated<\/p>\n
25.08.1986. The learned Member referred to the decision of<\/p>\n
this Court in the case of Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan &<\/p>\n
Ors. : 1996 (1) RLW 396 to find that reference could not be
\n                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
permitted after an inordinate delay; and observed that in any<\/p>\n
case, for the order under Section 15 of the Act of 1955 having<\/p>\n
become final in favour of the non-applicants, the reference<\/p>\n
was liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned Member also considered the contentions as<\/p>\n
urged on behalf of the petitioners about other Reference Case<\/p>\n
No. 266\/1986 having been allowed in relation to mutation No.<\/p>\n
315 but observed that in the said case, the land in question<\/p>\n
was found to have been given to the Urban Improvement Trust<\/p>\n
for abadi extension and the disputed mutation was set aside<\/p>\n
for the Urban Improvement Trust having not been heard.<\/p>\n
The learned Member pointed out that the position in the<\/p>\n
present case was entirely different and rather, the reference<\/p>\n
proceedings as adopted by the Urban Improvement Trust in<\/p>\n
relation to the land in question stood terminated way back in<\/p>\n
the year 1995.\n<\/p>\n
      The petitioner State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar,<\/p>\n
Jodhpur has preferred this writ petition seeking to challenge<\/p>\n
the order so passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting the<\/p>\n
reference made by the Collector. While examining this writ<\/p>\n
petition and looking to the observations made in the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Board of Revenue, it was considered<\/p>\n
appropriate to hear the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur in
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
this matter and the petitioner was, therefore, directed to<\/p>\n
implead the said Urban Improvement Trust as party-<\/p>\n
respondent by the order dated 12.09.2008. Thereafter, for the<\/p>\n
said Urban Improvement Trust having been substituted by the<\/p>\n
Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur, such directions<\/p>\n
were modified on 12.12.2008 and the said successor of Urban<\/p>\n
Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, i.e., the Jodhpur Development<\/p>\n
Authority, Jodhpur was ordered to be impleaded as party-<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      Upon being served with a notice in this matter,<\/p>\n
submissions have been made on behalf of the Jodhpur<\/p>\n
Development Authority, Jodhpur specifically to the effect that<\/p>\n
the land in dispute was never set apart in favour of the Urban<\/p>\n
Improvement Trust under the Land Revenue Act and had not<\/p>\n
been acquired for the Urban Improvement Trust; and that the<\/p>\n
application for reference as made by the Urban Improvement<\/p>\n
Trust was withdrawn. It has, therefore, been submitted that<\/p>\n
the respondent Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur has<\/p>\n
nothing to do with the matter.\n<\/p>\n
      The categoric stand        taken on behalf of the Jodhpur<\/p>\n
Development Authority, Jodhpur makes it clear that the<\/p>\n
petitioners were not right in suggesting       similarity of the<\/p>\n
present case with the other one wherein the reference was
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
allowed particularly after finding the land in question having<\/p>\n
been set apart and handed over to the Urban Improvement<\/p>\n
Trust. For the fundamental difference of facts, the decision in<\/p>\n
Reference Case No.266\/1986 has no application to the<\/p>\n
present case whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The basic facts of the present case make it absolutely<\/p>\n
clear that the learned Collector proceeded merely on the<\/p>\n
assumption that the questioned mutation No.314 was<\/p>\n
sanctioned in favour of the non-applicants only on the basis of<\/p>\n
dropping of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of<\/p>\n
1956. Such observations have been found not in accord with<\/p>\n
the record; and it has been noticed that the directions were<\/p>\n
issued by the Assistant Collector on the basis of the earlier<\/p>\n
orders, patta, and other pieces of evidence that were placed<\/p>\n
before him and were referred in his communication dated<\/p>\n
28.12.1978. There does not appear any reason to consider<\/p>\n
any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court in such<\/p>\n
findings on essential facts by the Board of Revenue.<\/p>\n
      Apart from the aforesaid, it is but apparent that the<\/p>\n
disputed mutation was effected as back as in the year 1978.<\/p>\n
The proceedings in reference were taken up by the Collector<\/p>\n
concerned only in the year 1994; and significantly, in the year
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
         1995, the reference application as moved on behalf of the<\/p>\n
         Urban Improvement Trust in relation to the same mutation was<\/p>\n
         withdrawn. Thereafter, the reference in question was made in<\/p>\n
         this case only in the year 2001. The reference proceedings<\/p>\n
         cannot be adopted as a matter of course and as a matter of<\/p>\n
         right at any time as chosen by the authorities concerned.<\/p>\n
               The reference having been made after an inordinate<\/p>\n
         delay with nothing on substance; and no case of any<\/p>\n
         fundamental illegality or manifest error having been made out,<\/p>\n
         the Board of Revenue cannot be faulted in having rejected the<\/p>\n
         same.\n<\/p>\n
               There appears no ground in this case to consider any<\/p>\n
         interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
               In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition does not merit<\/p>\n
         admission; and stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.\n<\/p>\n
Mohan\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009 1 S\/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948\/2006. State of Rajasthan Vs. Kana Ram & Ors. Date of Order :: 24th March 2009. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, GC, for the petitioners. Mr. S.D.N. Bhatt ] […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009 - 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-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-25T05:35:49+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\\\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T05:35:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1543,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T05:35:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009 - 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-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-25T05:35:49+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\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T05:35:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009"},"wordCount":1543,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009","name":"State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T05:35:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-raj-vs-kana-ram-ors-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Raj vs Kana Ram & Ors on 24 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/133822","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=133822"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133822\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}