{"id":136495,"date":"2010-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-22T01:23:56","modified_gmt":"2016-03-21T19:53:56","slug":"chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/7628\/2007\t 12\/ 12\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7628 of 2007\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCHANCHALBEN\nJETHABHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL &amp; 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THRO.SECRETARY &amp; 4 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nBHARAT T RAO for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR AMIT PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 2 -\n5. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/05\/2007 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>By<br \/>\n\tway of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction<br \/>\n\tand\/or order quashing and setting aside the judgment and order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 30.6.2005 passed in<br \/>\n\tRevision Application No. TENBS 221\/1995 and to restore the order<br \/>\n\tdated 30.6.1995 passed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Surat passed in<br \/>\n\tTenancy Appeal No. 2\/1995 by which the order dated 30.7.1994 passed<br \/>\n\tby the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT, Choryasi in Tenancy Case No.36\/1994 was<br \/>\n\tconfirmed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Surat.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tdispute is with regard to the land bearing Survey No.76 Block No.81<br \/>\n\tsituated at village Devadh, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner No.1 was the owner of the aforesaid land. That the<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos.3 to 5 herein purchased the said land by registered<br \/>\n\tsale-deed dated 5.12.1980 and the necessary entry was mutated in the<br \/>\n\trevenue record being mutation entry No. 630 in the year 1980 itself<br \/>\n\tand it was also certified by the Competent Authority. That the<br \/>\n\tDeputy Collector, Choryasi initiated suo-motu revisional powers and<br \/>\n\thas taken the aforesaid sale-deed \/ transaction in suo-motu revision<br \/>\n\tin the year 1994 on the ground that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were<br \/>\n\tnon-agriculturists and the said transaction was in violation of<br \/>\n\tprovisions of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Deputy<br \/>\n\tCollector directed the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT, Choryasi to initiate the<br \/>\n\tproceedings under Section 84(C) of the Act and accordingly, the<br \/>\n\tMamlatdar &amp; ALT, Choryasi initiated the proceedings which was<br \/>\n\tnumbered as Tenancy Case No. 36\/1994. The Mamlatdar &amp; ALT, Surat<br \/>\n\tvide order dated 30.7.1994 held that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were<br \/>\n\tnot agriculturists when they purchased the land in question and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, he held the said transaction as invalid and in breach of<br \/>\n\tprovisions of Section 63 of the Act. Being aggrieved and<br \/>\n\tdissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT,<br \/>\n\tChoryasi dated 30.7.1994 passed in Tenancy Case No. 36\/94, the<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos.3 to 5 preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector<br \/>\n\t(LR), Surat being Tenancy Appeal No. 2\/1995 and the Deputy<br \/>\n\tCollector, Surat dismissed the said appeal confirming the order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT, Choryasi. Being aggrieved and<br \/>\n\tdissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Collector (LR),<br \/>\n\tSurat dated 30.6.1995 passed in Tenancy Appeal No. 2\/1995 the<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos. 3 to 5 preferred revision application before the<br \/>\n\tGujarat Revenue Tribunal being Revision Application No. TENBS<br \/>\n\t221\/1995 and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by its impugned judgment<br \/>\n\tand order dated 30.6.2005 has been pleased to allow the said<br \/>\n\trevision application quashing and setting aside the order dated<br \/>\n\t30.6.1995 passed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Surat passed in<br \/>\n\tTenancy Appeal No. 2\/1995 as well as the order passed by the<br \/>\n\tMamlatdar &amp; ALT, Choryasi dated 30.7.1994 passed in Tenancy Case<br \/>\n\tNo. 36\/1994. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and<br \/>\n\torder passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 30.6.2005 passed<br \/>\n\tin Revision Application No. TENBS 221\/1995 the petitioners ?<br \/>\n\toriginal land owners ?  sellers have preferred the present Special<br \/>\n\tCivil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tB.T.Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has<br \/>\n\tvehemently submitted that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has<br \/>\n\tmaterially erred in allowing the said revision application and<br \/>\n\tquashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector<br \/>\n\t(LR), Surat dated 30.6.1995 passed in Tenancy Appeal No. 2\/1995<br \/>\n\tinasmuch as the transaction between petitioner No.1 and the<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos.3 to 5 and the sale-deed was in breach of provisions<br \/>\n\tof Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act and the said transaction was<br \/>\n\ta nullity and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought not to have<br \/>\n\tconfirmed the said transaction \/ sale-deed and ought not to have<br \/>\n\tquashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector (LR),<br \/>\n\tSurat. Shri Rao has also further submitted that after the order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Surat dated 30.6.1995 passed in<br \/>\n\tTenancy Appeal No. 2\/1995, vide agreement dated 10.2.2005 entered<br \/>\n\tinto between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.3 to 5, a sum of<br \/>\n\tRs.10 Lacs was repaid to the respondent Nos.3 to 5 and remaining<br \/>\n\tamount was agreed to be paid within next 14 months and therefore, it<br \/>\n\tis submitted that after pocketed a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs, the<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos.3 to 5 cannot claim any right on the basis of the<br \/>\n\tsale-deed of 1980. It is further submitted that as the respondent<br \/>\n\tNos.3 to 5 were non-agriculturists at the time when they purchased<br \/>\n\tthe land in question, the transaction is hit by Section 63 of the<br \/>\n\tAct and therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special<br \/>\n\tCivil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis required to be noted that the petitioner No.1 has sold the land<br \/>\n\tin question in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by registered<br \/>\n\tsale deed and has pocketed the money. The transaction of 1980 was<br \/>\n\ttaken under suo-motu revision by the Deputy Collector in the year<br \/>\n\t1994 i.e. after the period of 14 years of the transaction and even<br \/>\n\tafter 14 years of the necessary entries in the revenue record.<br \/>\n\tConsidering the fact that the suo-motu power was exercised after the<br \/>\n\tperiod of unreasonable delay i.e. after the period of 14 years, the<br \/>\n\tTribunal has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy<br \/>\n\tCollector. As the powers were exercised after the period of 14 years<br \/>\n\tand the same were found to be exercised after unreasonable delay and<br \/>\n\twhen the Tribunal has set aside the said order, it cannot be said<br \/>\n\tthat the Tribunal has committed any illegality in setting aside the<br \/>\n\torder passed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Surat. On the contrary,<br \/>\n\tthe order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is in consonance<br \/>\n\twith the decisions of this Court as well as the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\n\tCourt with regard to exercising the powers belatedly.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis also required to be noted that so far as the petitioners are<br \/>\n\tconcerned, the petitioner No.1 is the original land owner who has<br \/>\n\tsold the land in question to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by<br \/>\n\tregistered sale deed in the year 1980. Once he has sold the land and<br \/>\n\the is the party to the transaction and has pocketed the money at the<br \/>\n\trelevant time, it is not open for the petitioner No.1 to challenge<br \/>\n\tthe said transaction of which he is a party to the said transaction.<br \/>\n\t Identical question came to be considered by the learned Single<br \/>\n\tJudge of this Court in case of Dashrathlal M. Patel &amp;<br \/>\n\tOthers V\/s. State of Gujarat &amp; Others reported<br \/>\n\tin 2007 (1) GLH 106 and<br \/>\n\tas per the said decision, when the seller who executed the sale deed<br \/>\n\tin favour of the purchaser and after receiving the consideration<br \/>\n\tchallenged the transaction as illegal on the statutory provision and<br \/>\n\twhen the petition was preferred under Article 227 of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India, the learned Single Judge in the said decision<br \/>\n\thas observed that, the petition under Article<br \/>\n\t227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of such a seller is<br \/>\n\tnot required to be entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Learned Single Judge has also considered another decision of<br \/>\n\tthis Court in the case of<br \/>\n\tPrahladbhai Monahbhai Patel V\/s. Vithalbhai Mohanbhai Patel in<br \/>\n\tSpecial Civil Application No. 4647 of 2005 and<br \/>\n\tthe following observations of the said decision :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t?S#.\n<\/p>\n<p> Having considered the above, it appears that it is an admitted<br \/>\nposition that the father of the  petitioner,  by      accepting<br \/>\nconsideration, has executed sale deed in favour of the   respondent<br \/>\nno.1.    Therefore, father of  the petitioner, whose interest is<br \/>\nbeing  represented  by  the petitioner, is a party to the<br \/>\ntransaction, which is found to be in breach of the statutory<br \/>\nprovisions by the Prant Officer. The  State  Government,  in<br \/>\nexercise of the revisional jurisdiction  has  found  that  the action<br \/>\nis taken  after unreasonable delay, inasmuch as   the transaction  is<br \/>\nof 1963 and even if it is considered that the action was taken<br \/>\nimmediately after entry was  mutated      in the revenue record, then<br \/>\nalso, the effect of the delay cannot be  said as wiped out.  In any<br \/>\ncase, the State has      not  preferred  petition  before  this<br \/>\nCourt   and   the petitioner&#8217;s  father who was party to the<br \/>\ntransaction, as      such, cannot be said to be aggrieved by the<br \/>\ndecision  of the State Government.  So will be the case, in the<br \/>\nevent,      the  petitioners  are  representing the interest as legal<br \/>\nheirs of the party to the transaction.  One  who  is  a<br \/>\n      beneficiary   of   the  transaction,  once  having<br \/>\ntaken benefit,  cannot  be  allowed   to   contend   that   the<br \/>\n      transaction   is   illegal  or  is  in  contravention<br \/>\nto statutory provision and, therefore, even  though  he  has<br \/>\n      enjoyed  the  benefit of transaction, the property,<br \/>\nwhich  is already<br \/>\nsold, should be given back to him or should be taken away by the<br \/>\nstatutory authority.(Emphasis supplied) At this stage, it would<br \/>\nbe worthwhile to refer to certain  observations  of  the  Division<br \/>\nBench  of  this Court in the case of Patel  Ratilal Maganbhai &amp;<br \/>\nothers Vs.  State  of  Gujarat,  2003 (1) GLR 562.  This Court had,<br \/>\nin the said decision, while considering  the  challenge made by one<br \/>\nof the parties to the transaction of  sale  against  the  decision<br \/>\nof  the authority, observed inter alia at para-13 as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;&#8230; Seller  of  the  transaction  in  case  of voluntary  sale is required to file a suit before the appropriate court for  declaration  that  the              sale is void, even if he is seeking a declaration that  the  transaction of sale is void on account of  non-availability   of permission of the competent authority.    Since it is a question of              voluntary  sale,  seeking  declaration  of   such voluntary  sale  as  void  at the instance of the seller of the land, taking into consideration the             decision of the Full Bench in the case  of  Jadav Prabhatbhai  Jethabhai,  2001  (1)  GLR  16, such seller much approach the Court within the  period of  limitation  for  declaration that the sale is              invalid or void and the period of  limitation  as provided  under  law  is  of three years from the date of such sale.&#8221;??\n<\/p>\n<p>\tUnder<br \/>\n\tthe circumstances, when the Deputy Collector exercised the powers<br \/>\n\tafter the period of 14 years i.e. after unreasonable delay and the<br \/>\n\tsaid order came to be set aside by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, it<br \/>\n\tcannot be said that there is any illegality committed by the Gujarat<br \/>\n\tRevenue Tribunal which calls for the interference of this Court in<br \/>\n\texercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of<br \/>\n\tIndia. Even otherwise, considering above, the petitioner No.1 cannot<br \/>\n\tchallenge the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as he<br \/>\n\thimself was a party to the transaction and the sale deed. If there<br \/>\n\tare any rights in favour of the petitioners on the basis of<br \/>\n\tsubsequent development and\/or transaction and\/or agreements, the<br \/>\n\tsame would be a fresh cause of action and for that the petitioners<br \/>\n\tcan initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum,<br \/>\n\thowever, so far as challenge to the order passed by the Gujarat<br \/>\n\tRevenue Tribunal impugned in the present Special Civil Application<br \/>\n\tis concerned, it cannot be said that the same warrants any<br \/>\n\tinterference of this Court in exercise of the powers under Article<br \/>\n\t227 of the Constitution of India. Under the circumstances, present<br \/>\n\tSpecial Civil Application is required to be dismissed and is<br \/>\n\taccordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>[<br \/>\nM.R.Shah, J. ] <\/p>\n<p>kdc<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/7628\/2007 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7628 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-21T19:53:56+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T19:53:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1833,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T19:53:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 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":"Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-21T19:53:56+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T19:53:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010"},"wordCount":1833,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010","name":"Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T19:53:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanchalben-vs-state-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chanchalben vs State on 12 October, 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\/136495","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=136495"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136495\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}