{"id":144932,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-17T19:24:52","modified_gmt":"2016-02-17T13:54:52","slug":"raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Dave,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCA\/8334\/2009\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 8334 of 2009\n \n\nIn\nLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 552 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 552 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6027 of 1996\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 3122 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 552 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE\n \n \n \n=============================================\n \n\nRAISINH\nAJABSINH RANA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n============================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR PY DIVYESHVAR for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS KRINA CALLA ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 3. \nUNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Respondent(s) :\n4, \nMR NILESH A PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3,\n4.2.4, 4.2.5,4.2.6  \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\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:      \/09\/2010 \n\n \n\nCAV\nORDER \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE)<\/p>\n<p> CIVIL<br \/>\nAPPLICATION NO. 8334 OF 2009 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)<\/p>\n<p>\tBy<br \/>\nan order dated 30.3.2010, Letters Patent Appeal was ordered to be<br \/>\nlisted along with Civil Application No.8334 of 2009 (for condonation<br \/>\nof delay) on 26th April, 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of the case and being satisfied on<br \/>\ngrounds and sufficient cause is shown, delay of 1070 days stands<br \/>\ncondoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tCivil<br \/>\nApplication accordingly stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p> LETTERS<br \/>\nPATENT APPEAL NO. 552 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3122 OF 2010<br \/>\n(FOR STAY)\t<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\ndispute is pertaining to the land situated at Survey No.584<br \/>\nadmeasuring 4 Acres 17 Gunthas of village Vakaner, Taluka Savli,<br \/>\nDistrict Vadodara, belonging to respondent No.4-temple trust and<br \/>\nvis-a-vis claim made by the petitioner over the land as a tenant.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tRespondent<br \/>\nNo.4-trust filed Regular Civil Suit No.129 of 1969 before the learned<br \/>\nCivil Judge, (J.D.) Savli, for possession of the above land, after<br \/>\nterminating the tenancy of one Roopsinh Bajibhai and in the said suit<br \/>\nthe petitioner was joined as defendant No.7.  However, during<br \/>\npendency of the said suit upon framing the issue about jurisdiction<br \/>\nof the Civil Court to decide the dispute with regard to tenancy, a<br \/>\nreference was made by the Civil Court to the Mamlatdar, Savli, and<br \/>\naccordingly by an order dated 21.11.1988 Mamlatdar &amp; ALT, Savli,<br \/>\ndecided that said Roopsingh  Bajibhai was tenant on specified dates<br \/>\nnamely 1.4.1957 under the Tenancy Act and also on 15.11.1969 as per<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 88(e)(2) of the  Bombay Tenancy and<br \/>\nAgricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the<br \/>\nTenancy Act&#8221;).  An appeal was preferred before the Dy.<br \/>\nCollector, Vadodara being Tenancy Appeal No.15 of 1989 and vide order<br \/>\ndated 8.10.1990, the appeal was partly accepted and the order of<br \/>\nMamlatdar &amp; ALT dated 21.11.1988 was quashed and set aside and it<br \/>\nwas remanded for taking a decision afresh.  Accordingly, the<br \/>\nMamlatdar &amp; ALT considered merit of the case and possession of<br \/>\nthe land in question based on rival claims and by an order dated<br \/>\n31.3.1993 passed in Tenancy Case No. 1702 of 1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1.\tThat,<br \/>\nShri Raisinh Ajabsinh, the occupier of the land was found to have<br \/>\nbeen cultivating the land and Talati-cum-Mantri \/Secretary, Village<br \/>\nPanchayat was directed to enter the name of the petitioner in record<br \/>\nof rights as tenant of the land in question.  That, temple trust<br \/>\npreferring Tenancy Appeal No.86 of 1993, the Dy. Collector quashed<br \/>\nand set aside the order of Mamlatdar &amp; ALT, Savli, on the ground<br \/>\nthat the occupier namely Raisinh Ajabsinh was not tenant on specified<br \/>\ndate as per Section 88E of the Tenancy Act, since original tenant<br \/>\nShri Roopsinh Bajibhai died issueless on 6.3.1973 and claim made by<br \/>\nsome persons claiming to be legal heirs of said Shri Roopsinh<br \/>\nBajibhai,  was finally negatived by High Court in a Writ Petition<br \/>\nNo.922 of 1983 vide order dated 28.11.1985.  That, challenge was made<br \/>\nbefore Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing Revision Application<br \/>\nNo.TEN.B.A.241\/95 dated 31.7.1996 and the revision application came<br \/>\nto be dismissed by upholding the order of Collector, Vadodara dated<br \/>\n29.4.1995 passed in appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.2.\tThe<br \/>\nGujarat Revenue Tribunal also confirmed the reasonings of the<br \/>\nappellate authority on the ground that the occupier namely Raisinh<br \/>\nAjabsinh had no valid or deemed tenancy and after death of tenant<br \/>\nShri Roopsingh Bajibhai on 6.3.1973, no one had inherited any title<br \/>\nor tenancy of the land in question and on specified dates as required<br \/>\nunder Section 88E(2) of the Act Shri Raisinh Ajabsinh was not a<br \/>\ntenant.  Besides, no application was filed under Section 7o(b) before<br \/>\nthe Mamlatdar by Raisinh Ajabsinh declaring him to be tenant of the<br \/>\nsuit land.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.3.\tThat<br \/>\nchallenge in the writ petition under<br \/>\nArticles 226 and 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India before this Court was the above order of GRT<br \/>\ndated 31st July, 1996, also failed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate for the appellant submitted that the Collector and the<br \/>\nGujarat Revenue Tribunal, while exercising the appellate and<br \/>\nrevisional powers, respectively, have failed to notice the possession<br \/>\nof the tenancy of the petitioner and while confirming the findings of<br \/>\nthe above authorities, learned Judge also committed an error while<br \/>\nexercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia.  It is further submitted that considering revenue record,<br \/>\nnamely, village form No.7\/12 and payments of revenue dues made by the<br \/>\npetitioner, it was established that the petitioner was in possession<br \/>\nof the land in question since last 40 years.  It is further submitted<br \/>\nthat when the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT, Savli, arrived at a finding on the<br \/>\nbasis of appreciation of evidence on record in the order dated<br \/>\n31.3.1993, the appellate and revisional authority were not justified<br \/>\ntaking a different view than the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe<br \/>\nlearned AGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that no error<br \/>\napparent on the face of the record or law appears and, therefore, the<br \/>\nlearned Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed<br \/>\nunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.  It is<br \/>\nfurther submitted that on specified date, namely, 15.11.1969, the<br \/>\npetitioner was not found to be a tenant and no application under<br \/>\nSection 70(b) before the Mamlatdar was filed for declaring him as a<br \/>\ntenant of the suit land and a belated claim on the basis of a few<br \/>\nentries in the revenue record would not entitle the appellant to<br \/>\nclaim tenancy rights over the suit land.  In view of the above, it is<br \/>\nsubmitted that no interference is called for in the decision of the<br \/>\nlearned Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tHaving<br \/>\nheard learned advocates for the parties  and on perusal of the<br \/>\nrecord, we find that the appellate as well as revisional authorities<br \/>\nhave arrived at findings about the fact that the appellant herein was<br \/>\nneither a tenant on any of the specified dates namely on 1.4.1957<br \/>\ntillers&#8217; day nor on 15.11.1969 under Section 88E(2) of the Tenancy<br \/>\nAct.  The above fact was duly noticed by learned Single Judge and<br \/>\nconcurred with while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.1.\tWe<br \/>\nhave also carefully examined the record pertaining to claim made by<br \/>\nthe appellant about tenancy right of the land in question and noticed<br \/>\nthat except a few entries from 1927 to 1932 and in the year 1941 to<br \/>\n1942, where name of the father of the appellant was shown as<br \/>\ncultivating the suit land but nowhere name of father of the appellant<br \/>\nor the appellant herein was shown in the cultivation form thereafter.<br \/>\n That, the claim based on such sporadic entries for a few years in<br \/>\nthe revenue record in the name of the father of the appellant would<br \/>\nnot establish any right of tenancy neither in favour of his father<br \/>\nnor the appellant herein.  The above claim is not based on the record<br \/>\nbecause the revenue record from 1951-52 to 1981 to 1982 in the<br \/>\ncultivation column name of Roopsinh Baji who was declared as tenant<br \/>\nis shown.  That, name of the appellant or his father is nowhere found<br \/>\nin village form No.7\/12 after 1942-1943.  So far as entry No.1232<br \/>\ndated 17.5.1965 of village Form No.6 pertaining to suit land appears<br \/>\nto have been recorded on the basis of the order of Mamlatdar &amp;<br \/>\nALT dated 15.10.1962 stating that the trust had obtained the<br \/>\ncertificate of the  exemption under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act<br \/>\nand the tenant Roopsinh Baji was not entitled to purchase the suit<br \/>\nland.  Even, this entry was certified on 21.8.1965 by the Circle<br \/>\nInspector, Savli and even this entry was also not challenged by the<br \/>\nappellant or his father.  So far as, legal heirs namely Pratap Mavji<br \/>\nand Chandaben, nephew and niece of the deceased Roopsinh Baji, who<br \/>\ndied on 6.3.1973 and &#8216;will&#8217; executed in their favour and claim based<br \/>\non such &#8216;will&#8217; for tenancy was negatived upto the High Court.  Thus,<br \/>\nneither Roopsinh Baji, his legal heirs nor the appellant or his<br \/>\nfather could claim any tenancy right whatsoever.  Besides, no<br \/>\napplication was preferred under provisions of Section 70(b) of<br \/>\nTenancy Act by the appellant or his predecessors before the Mamlatdar<br \/>\nor declaring him to be the tenant of the suit land.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, contentions of learned advocate to allow the<br \/>\nappeal and writ petition with prayers fail.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tWe<br \/>\nare in agreement with concurrent findings of fact recorded by both<br \/>\nthe authorities namely, the appellate as well as revisional as<br \/>\nconfirmed by learned Single Judge while exercising powers under<br \/>\nArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India  and in absence of<br \/>\nany jurisdictional error much less error of law in exercise of<br \/>\npowers, no interference is called for and the appeal fails.  Notice<br \/>\ndischarged with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, Civil Application for stay does not survive and is<br \/>\ndisposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>[S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,<br \/>\nC.J.]<\/p>\n<p>[ANANT<br \/>\nS. DAVE, J.]<\/p>\n<p>\/\/smita\/\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 2010 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Dave,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CA\/8334\/2009 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION &#8211; FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 8334 of 2009 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 552 of 2010 With LETTERS PATENT [&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-144932","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>Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 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\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-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=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-17T13:54:52+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\\\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T13:54:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1447,\"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\\\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T13:54:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 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":"Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 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\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-17T13:54:52+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\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T13:54:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":1447,"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\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","name":"Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T13:54:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisinh-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raisinh vs State on 29 September, 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\/144932","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=144932"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144932\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}