{"id":134389,"date":"2008-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-20T12:59:53","modified_gmt":"2016-12-20T07:29:53","slug":"abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: D Jain<\/div>\n
Bench: C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n
                                                     REPORTABLE\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n            CIVIL APPEAL NO.         4982      OF 2008\n            (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8622 of 2007)\n\n\n\nABDUL GAFUR & ANR.                         --   APPELLANT (S)\n\n\n                             VERSUS\n\n\nSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.                -- RESPONDENT (S)\n\n\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
D.K. JAIN, J.:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.     This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the<\/p>\n
     order, dated 29th March, 2007, passed by the High Court of<\/p>\n
     Uttarakhand in Writ Petition Misc. No.272 of 2007 whereby<\/p>\n
                                                           1<\/span>
\n     the two suits filed by the appellants for perpetual injunction<\/p>\n
     have been dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.     Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as<\/p>\n
     follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n       On 2\/28th March, 2005, a gazette Notification was issued<\/p>\n
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short<\/p>\n
`the Act’) for acquiring 0.6900 Hec. of land belonging to one<\/p>\n
Tek Chand, respondent No.4 herein, for construction of<\/p>\n
approach        road   for   Himalayan   Institute   Hospital   Trust,<\/p>\n
Dehradun, respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as “the<\/p>\n
Hospital”). Tek Chand objected to the said acquisition. In the<\/p>\n
meanwhile, on 25th May, 2005, he alienated a part of the said<\/p>\n
land in favour of appellants No.1 and 2 by way of gift deeds.<\/p>\n
Gazette notification under Section 6 of the Act was published<\/p>\n
on 16th June, 2005.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4. On 4th July, 2005, Tek Chand (respondent No.4) preferred a<\/p>\n
     Writ Petition challenging the validity of Notifications under<\/p>\n
     Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It appears that on 27th March,<\/p>\n
     2006, a clarification was issued by the State Government,<\/p>\n
                                                                 2<\/span>
\n  respondent No.1, to the effect that the possession of the<\/p>\n
  passage to the Hospital shall remain with them; the<\/p>\n
  Government would be making financial contribution in its<\/p>\n
  construction and the public would be entitled to use the<\/p>\n
  same. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government in<\/p>\n
  the Writ Petition it was reiterated that the road was not<\/p>\n
  going to be used exclusively by the Hospital.     Ultimately,<\/p>\n
  the Writ Petition was dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed<\/p>\n
  by Tek Chand against the said order was also dismissed on<\/p>\n
  15th September, 2006. Licence deed in respect of the said<\/p>\n
  land was executed in favour of the Hospital on 16th<\/p>\n
  November, 2006 and construction of the road commenced<\/p>\n
  some time in November, 2006.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5. Apprehending that the Hospital was planning to raise a wall<\/p>\n
  on both sides of the road, obstructing use of the road by the<\/p>\n
  public at large, including the appellants, the appellants<\/p>\n
  filed the aforementioned two suits against the Hospital and<\/p>\n
  Tek Chand for perpetual injunction in the court of Civil<\/p>\n
  Judge (JD), Dehradun, restraining the Hospital from raising<\/p>\n
                                                          3<\/span>
\n  construction      of   any       nature    in     the   said    property.<\/p>\n
  Applications under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of<\/p>\n
  Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) were also filed<\/p>\n
  for grant of interim injunction.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. The suits were contested by the Hospital.                 Taking into<\/p>\n
  consideration the written statement filed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
  Hospital and after hearing the parties, the trial court, by<\/p>\n
  detailed   orders,       dated    2nd     February,     2007,     granted<\/p>\n
  temporary injunction in favour of the appellants and<\/p>\n
  restrained the Hospital from constructing boundary wall on<\/p>\n
  both sides of the road in question.               Being aggrieved, the<\/p>\n
  Hospital, filed appeals to the court of District Judge,<\/p>\n
  Dehradun.      Arguments in the appeals were heard and<\/p>\n
  orders were reserved.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7. During the pendency of the appeals, Tek Chand filed yet<\/p>\n
  another Writ Petition on 11th March, 2007, inter alia,<\/p>\n
  alleging   that    the     acquisition      was     fraudulent.    While<\/p>\n
  entertaining the Writ Petition, exercising its power under<\/p>\n
  Section 24 of the Code, vide an ex-parte order dated 20th<\/p>\n
                                                                       4<\/span>
\n  March, 2007, the High Court transferred both the said suits<\/p>\n
  as well as the civil appeals to itself in order to get the<\/p>\n
  dispute settled between the parties. In the said order, the<\/p>\n
  High Court directed that both the lower courts shall give<\/p>\n
  notices to all the parties in the suit and the appeals,<\/p>\n
  informing   them   that   the   suits   and   appeals   stand<\/p>\n
  transferred to the High Court and they were required to<\/p>\n
  appear in person before the Court on 28th March, 2007. On<\/p>\n
  the said order being communicated to the appellants, they<\/p>\n
  filed Misc. Application No. 499 of 2007 in the said Writ<\/p>\n
  Petition seeking recall of order dated 20th March, 2007.<\/p>\n
8. When the Writ Petition came up for consideration, on 29th<\/p>\n
  March, 2007, the High Court dismissed both the suits and<\/p>\n
  the appeals by passing the following short order:<\/p>\n
               “We have perused the averments
\n          made in the suits as well as in the
\n          appeals, which are represented by Sri
\n          Neeraj Garg (Advocate).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Since, the question involved is
\n          directly raised in the writ petition and we
\n          are hearing the writ petition, therefore,
\n          the suits as well as appeals pending<\/p>\n
                                                             5<\/span>
\n           before the court below are dismissed
\n           accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                 Let this writ petition for final
\n           hearing on 03.04.2007. Learned Counsel
\n           for the Respondents may file Counter
\n           Affidavit, if any, by 03.04.2007.\n<\/p>\n
                In the meantime, if the Respondents
\n           shall raise any construction that will be
\n           at their own risk.”\n<\/p>\n
It is against this order of the High Court that this appeal, by<\/p>\n
special leave, has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior<\/p>\n
  counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted<\/p>\n
  that the High Court has committed a manifest error in<\/p>\n
  dismissing the suits by a cryptic order without taking into<\/p>\n
  consideration the nature and the purport of the two suits.<\/p>\n
  Learned counsel argued that the scope of the Writ Petition<\/p>\n
  filed by the original owner of the subject land and the suits<\/p>\n
  filed by the appellants was entirely different inasmuch as in<\/p>\n
  the suits there is no challenge to the acquisition of the piece<\/p>\n
  of land as in the case of the Writ Petition. It was pointed<\/p>\n
                                                            6<\/span>
\n     out that the relief in the suits is confined to the right of the<\/p>\n
     appellants to use the public road laid on the acquired land.<\/p>\n
     On merit, it was strenuously urged that being a public<\/p>\n
     street, neither the State nor any one claiming under it could<\/p>\n
     cause any obstruction or hindrance in its user by enclosing<\/p>\n
     it with the walls. In support of the proposition that the land<\/p>\n
     having been acquired for construction of a public road, it<\/p>\n
     could not be leased out for private use, learned counsel<\/p>\n
     placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Municipal<\/p>\n
     Board, Manglaur Vs. Sri Mahadeoji Maharaj1 as also on<\/p>\n
     a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Swarup &<\/p>\n
     Anr. Vs. Municipal Board, Bulandshahr & Anr.2 It was<\/p>\n
     also alleged that taking advantage of the time gap between<\/p>\n
     the dismissal of the suits and ad interim injunction by this<\/p>\n
     Court, the Hospital has completed the wall on both sides of<\/p>\n
     the road in a tearing hurry to make the present appeal a<\/p>\n
     fait accompli.       It is, thus, pleaded that the Hospital should<\/p>\n
     be directed to demolish the wall and restore status quo ante.<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n    [1965] 2 S.C.R. 242
\n2<\/span>
\n    A.I.R. 1979 ALLAHABAD 361<\/p>\n
                                                                  7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
10. Per contra, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
  appearing on behalf of the Hospital, while candidly<\/p>\n
  admitting that the manner in which the two suits have been<\/p>\n
  dismissed by the High Court is totally indefensible,<\/p>\n
  submitted that said suits were nothing but yet another<\/p>\n
  attempt by the original owner, respondent No.4 herein, to<\/p>\n
  somehow retain the control on the acquired land, now a<\/p>\n
  public road, as it would enhance the value of his remaining<\/p>\n
  land on both sides of the road.    Learned counsel was at<\/p>\n
  pains to assert that the land on both sides of the road was<\/p>\n
  proposed to be developed by respondent No.4 as a<\/p>\n
  commercial venture in connivance with the appellants. It<\/p>\n
  was argued that if the road is used as a thoroughfare, the<\/p>\n
  very purpose of acquisition of land for providing free and<\/p>\n
  smooth passage to those visiting the Hospital, would be<\/p>\n
  defeated.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. Mr. V.K. Jain, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
  State Government, supporting the stand of the Hospital,<\/p>\n
  submitted that both the suits being meritless, the High<\/p>\n
                                                          8<\/span>
\n      Court was justified in dismissing them.             To buttress the<\/p>\n
      submission        that vexatious     and    meaningless     litigation<\/p>\n
      should be closed at the earliest stage, learned counsel<\/p>\n
      placed       reliance   on   a   decision   of   this   Court   in       T.<\/p>\n
      Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.3.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.Thus, the short question for consideration is whether the<\/p>\n
      High Court was justified in dismissing the two suits on the<\/p>\n
      sole ground that it was proposing to examine a similar<\/p>\n
      issue in the Writ Petition preferred by the original owner of<\/p>\n
      the land?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13. Section 9 of the Code provides that civil court shall have<\/p>\n
      jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting the<\/p>\n
      suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or<\/p>\n
      impliedly barred. To put it differently, as per Section 9 of<\/p>\n
      the Code, in all types of civil disputes, civil courts have<\/p>\n
      inherent jurisdiction unless a part of that jurisdiction is<\/p>\n
      carved out from such jurisdiction, expressly or by necessary<\/p>\n
      implication by any statutory provision and conferred on<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\n    (1977) 4 SCC 467<\/p>\n
                                                                           9<\/span>
\n      other Tribunal or Authority. Thus, the law confers on every<\/p>\n
      person an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature of<\/p>\n
      one’s choice, at one’s peril, howsoever frivolous the claim<\/p>\n
      may be, unless it is barred by a statute.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. In Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors.4, this Court<\/p>\n
      had observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “There is an inherent right in every
\n                  person to bring suit of a civil nature and
\n                  unless the suit is barred by statute one
\n                  may, at ones peril, bring a suit of one’s
\n                  choice. It is no answer to a suit,
\n                  howsoever frivolous the claim, that the
\n                  law confers no such right to sue. A suit
\n                  for its maintainability requires no
\n                  authority of law and it is enough that no
\n                  statute bars the suit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15. In Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai & Ors.5 relying on the<\/p>\n
      afore-extracted observation in Ganga Bai’s case (supra),<\/p>\n
      this Court had held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “Plaintiff is dominus litis, that is, master
\n                  of, or having dominion over, the case. He
\n                  is the person who has carriage and
\n                  control of an action. In case of conflict of
\n                  jurisdiction the choice ought to lie with
\n4<\/span>
\n    (1974) 2 SCC 393
\n5<\/span>
\n    (2002) 6 SCC 16<\/p>\n
                                                                 10<\/span>
\n                  the plaintiff to choose the forum best
\n                  suited to him unless there be a rule of
\n                  law excluding access to a forum of
\n                  plaintiff’s choice or permitting recourse to
\n                  a forum will be opposed to public policy
\n                  or will be an abuse of the process of law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16. It is trite that the rule of pleadings postulate that a plaint<\/p>\n
      must contain material facts. When the plaint read as a<\/p>\n
      whole does not disclose material facts giving rise to a cause<\/p>\n
      of action which can be entertained by a civil court, it may<\/p>\n
      be rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code.<\/p>\n
      Similarly, a plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court has to<\/p>\n
      be considered having regard to the contentions raised in the<\/p>\n
      plaint. For the said purpose, averments disclosing cause of<\/p>\n
      action and the reliefs sought for therein must be considered<\/p>\n
      in their entirety and the court would not be justified in<\/p>\n
      determining the question, one way or the other, only having<\/p>\n
      regard to the reliefs claimed de’hors the factual averments<\/p>\n
      made in the plaint.         (See: Church of North India Vs.<\/p>\n
      Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & Ors.6)<\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\n    (2005) 10 SCC 760<\/p>\n
                                                                 11<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
17. Having considered the matter in the light of the afore-stated<\/p>\n
  legal position, we are of the opinion that the impugned<\/p>\n
  order cannot be sustained. It is true that under Section 24<\/p>\n
  of the Code, the High Court has jurisdiction to suo motu<\/p>\n
  withdraw    a   suit   or   appeal,   pending   in   any    court<\/p>\n
  subordinate to it, to its file and adjudicate itself on the<\/p>\n
  issues involved therein and dispose of the same.           Unless<\/p>\n
  the High Court decides to transfer the suit or the appeal, as<\/p>\n
  the case may be, to some other court or the same court, it<\/p>\n
  is obliged to try, adjudicate and dispose of the same.         It<\/p>\n
  needs little emphasis that the High Court is competent to<\/p>\n
  dispose of the suit on preliminary issues, as contemplated<\/p>\n
  in Order 14 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code, which may include the<\/p>\n
  issues with regard to maintainability of the suit. If the High<\/p>\n
  Court is convinced that the plaint read as a whole does not<\/p>\n
  disclose any cause of action, it may reject the plaint in<\/p>\n
  terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. As a matter of fact,<\/p>\n
  as observed by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., in T. Arivandandam<\/p>\n
  (supra), if on a meaningful – not formal – reading of the<\/p>\n
  plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense<\/p>\n
                                                               12<\/span>
\n  of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should<\/p>\n
  exercise its power – under the said provision. And if clever<\/p>\n
  drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it<\/p>\n
  should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by<\/p>\n
  examining the party searchingly under Order X CPC.<\/p>\n
  Nonetheless, the fact remains that the suit has to be<\/p>\n
  disposed of either by the High Court or by the courts<\/p>\n
  subordinate to it in a meaningful manner as per the<\/p>\n
  procedure prescribed in the Code and not on one’s own<\/p>\n
  whims.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. In the instant case, as noted above, vide order dated 20th<\/p>\n
  March, 2007, the High Court transferred the two suits and<\/p>\n
  the appeals to itself.   On being served with a copy of the<\/p>\n
  said   order,   the   appellants   immediately   moved    an<\/p>\n
  application for recall of the said order.        In the said<\/p>\n
  application, it was pointed out that in the appeals,<\/p>\n
  preferred by the Hospital against the interim injunction<\/p>\n
  granted by the civil judge, argument had been heard by the<\/p>\n
  district judge and order was to be pronounced on 26th<\/p>\n
                                                           13<\/span>
\nMarch, 2007 but in the meanwhile on 20th March, 2007, the<\/p>\n
High Court passed the order withdrawing the appeals to<\/p>\n
itself. When the transferred case came up for consideration<\/p>\n
before the High Court on 29th March, 2007, without passing<\/p>\n
any order on the application preferred by the appellants for<\/p>\n
recall of order dated 20th March, 2007, the High Court<\/p>\n
dismissed the suits on the aforenoted ground, namely, the<\/p>\n
issues raised in the suits were being examined in the Writ<\/p>\n
Petition.   We have no hesitation in holding that the<\/p>\n
procedure adopted by the High Court is unknown to law.<\/p>\n
We are conscious of the fact that the object of filing of the<\/p>\n
suits could be a dubious and indirect attempt on the part of<\/p>\n
Tek Chand, respondent No.4, to derive some undue<\/p>\n
advantage in connivance with the plaintiffs, yet that was no<\/p>\n
ground to dismiss the suits summarily in the aforenoted<\/p>\n
manner.     It must be kept in mind that one of the<\/p>\n
fundamental norms of judicial process is that arguable<\/p>\n
questions either legal or factual, should not be summarily<\/p>\n
dismissed without recording a reasoned order.        A mere<\/p>\n
entertainment of the Writ Petition, to which the appellants<\/p>\n
                                                        14<\/span>
\n  herein were not parties, even if it involved determination of<\/p>\n
  similar issues, in our opinion, was not a good ground to<\/p>\n
  dismiss the two suits without granting opportunity to the<\/p>\n
  parties to prove their respective stands.        Moreover, the<\/p>\n
  scope of the Writ Petition and the two suits also seems to be<\/p>\n
  different.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19. On a conspectus of the factual scenario and in view of the<\/p>\n
  above discussion, the appeal is allowed; the impugned<\/p>\n
  order, dated 29th March, 2007, is set aside and the two<\/p>\n
  suits and the appeal, dismissed in terms of the said order,<\/p>\n
  are restored to the file of the High Court for fresh<\/p>\n
  adjudication and disposal in accordance with law.         The<\/p>\n
  High Court may also pass appropriate orders on the<\/p>\n
  appellant’s prayer for restitution, for which purpose I.A.<\/p>\n
  No.7 of 2007 shall stand transferred to the High Court. We<\/p>\n
  may clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the<\/p>\n
  merits of the two suits or the appeals, which shall be<\/p>\n
  considered   and   disposed    of   on   their   own   merits,<\/p>\n
  uninfluenced by any observation in this judgment.<\/p>\n
                                                            15<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will<\/p>\n
  bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                           ………………………………………….J.
\n                           (C.K. THAKKER)<\/p>\n
                           ………………………………………….J.
\n                            (D.K. JAIN)
\nNEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
AUGUST 11, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         16<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008 Author: D Jain Bench: C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4982 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8622 of 2007) ABDUL GAFUR & ANR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134389","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 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\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-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=\"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-20T07:29:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-20T07:29:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2622,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-20T07:29:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 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":"Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 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\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-20T07:29:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-20T07:29:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008"},"wordCount":2622,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008","name":"Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-20T07:29:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-gafur-anr-vs-state-of-uttarkhand-ors-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 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\/134389","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=134389"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134389\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}