{"id":146601,"date":"2008-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-04-10T17:56:05","modified_gmt":"2016-04-10T12:26:05","slug":"dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Anant S. 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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2919020\/2007\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\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 29190 of 2007\n \n\n \n \n============================================\n \n\nDAHYABHAI\nHATHIBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n============================================ \nAppearance\n: \nMR PV HATHI\nfor Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR VIPUL MISTRY ASST.\nGOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 3, 3.2.2, 3.2.3,3.2.4 - 4. \nNone for\nRespondent(s) : 3, \nMR JV BHAIRAVIA for Respondent(s) : 3.2.2\n \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 ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tRule.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf<br \/>\nof respondent. At the request of learned counsel for the parties,<br \/>\nthis petition is taken up for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner an occupant of land bearing survey No.975\/2 admeasuring 0<br \/>\nAcre and 6 Gunthas of Village Ajol, now in Mansa Taluka of<br \/>\nGandhinagar District, claims to have possession of the land bearing<br \/>\nsurvey No. 975\/1 admeasuring 0 Acre and 34 Gunthas adjoining to his<br \/>\nland bearing Survey No. 975\/2 in the same village.  It is the case of<br \/>\nthe petitioner that land bearing Survey No.975\/1 was purchased by the<br \/>\npetitioner by registered sale deed dated 24.5.1977 from respondent<br \/>\nNo.4 i.e. Sombhai Bhikhabhai Senva and two others.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt<br \/>\nis the case of the petitioner that land was originally Watan Pasayata<br \/>\nland and was originally granted to the ancestors of respondent No. 3<br \/>\n&amp; 4 towards emoluments for the services rendered by them to the<br \/>\nGovernment and the said land was governed by the provisions of the<br \/>\nBombay Hereditary Offices Act. In the year 1970, the land was leased<br \/>\nto the petitioner by one Bhikha Kalia who had raised loan from the<br \/>\npetitioner and created first mortgage of the said land in favour of<br \/>\nthe petitioner under an unregistered mortgage deed for Rs. 2,301\/-<br \/>\nand that after 1977 the said land was sold to the petitioner for Rs.<br \/>\n7,614\/- and a registered sale deed was duly executed on 24.5.1977 and<br \/>\nsince then the petitioner is in possession of the land.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tWhile<br \/>\nholding an inquiry under provisions of the Act, the Collector, Mansa,<br \/>\npassed an order addressed to the Assistant Collector on 2.3.1982,<br \/>\nordering vacation on the assumption that the petitioner was an<br \/>\nunauthorised occupant of the land.  Upon a challenge by filing<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Application No.5484\/1985 by the petitioner under<br \/>\nArticle 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order<br \/>\ndated 23.7.1985 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue<br \/>\nDepartment, Gujarat State, dismissing the Revision Application and<br \/>\nconfirming the earlier order of Collector, Mansa, dated 2.3.1982<br \/>\ntaking back the land in question, after considering the rival<br \/>\nsubmissions in para 5 and 6 this Court (Coram: Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice<br \/>\nM.S.Shah) held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tAt  the  hearing  of  this petition,<br \/>\nMr PV Hathi,<br \/>\n       learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the<br \/>\n      petitioner is in possession of the land since  last  more<br \/>\n      than  20  years  and  that  the petitioner is prepared to<br \/>\n      purchase the  land  in  accordance  with  the  Government<br \/>\n      Resolution  dated  16.3.1982 referred to in para 4 of the<br \/>\n      order  dated  23.7.1985   of   the   Secretary,   Revenue<br \/>\n      Department (Appeals).  Mr Hathi further submitted that it<br \/>\n      is  true  that  no  prior permission of the Collector was<br \/>\n      taken, but it is open to the Court to remand such  matter<br \/>\n      to  the Collector for enabling the parties to get ex-post<br \/>\n      facto permission.  In support of the said contention, the<br \/>\n      learned counsel relied on the decision of this  Court  in<br \/>\n      the   case  of  Patel  Maganbhai  Kesurbhai  since  decd.<br \/>\n      through his heirs vs.  Bhogilal Punjabhai Vasava &amp;  Ors.,<br \/>\n      1998(2) GLR 961.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.\tOn the other hand, the learned AGP for respondent<br \/>\n      Nos.  1 and 2  and  Mr  Bhairavia,  learned  counsel  for<br \/>\n      respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have supported the impugned orders<br \/>\n      and  have  submitted  that  no interference with the said<br \/>\n      orders is called for  in  exercise  of  the  jurisdiction<br \/>\n      under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.\tFrom  a  perusal  of  the  impugned  order  dated<br \/>\n      23.7.1985  of  the  Secretary  it  does  appear  that the<br \/>\n      original watandar did not pay the amount as  contemplated<br \/>\n      by  the  provisions  of  the  Bombay  Merged  Territories<br \/>\n      Miscellaneous Alienation Act, 1955  and,  therefore,  the<br \/>\n      land  was  not  regranted  to the original watandar or to<br \/>\n      respondent Nos.  3 to 5 who claim to be the heirs of  the<br \/>\n      deceased watandar, but the present petitioner claims that<br \/>\n      the  possession  of the land was physically transfered by<br \/>\n      Senva Bhikha  Kala  to  the  petitioner  initially  by  a<br \/>\n      mortgage  deed  and  thereafter by a registered sale deed<br \/>\n      dated 24.5.1977.  The petitioner had  also  submitted  an<br \/>\n      application dated 5.6.1982 (Annexure &#8220;B&#8221; to the petition)<br \/>\n      requesting  the  Collector  to  charge whatever amount or<br \/>\n      penalty was leviable and to regularize  the  petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\n      possession of  the land in question.  In this view of the<br \/>\n      matter and also in view of the decision of this Court  in<br \/>\n      Patel  Maganbhai  Kesurbhai  (Supra) holding that even if<br \/>\n      the  legislation  requires  previous  sanction   of   the<br \/>\n      Collector  before  the  transaction, such transfer is not<br \/>\n      totally prohibited, but a  transaction  without  previous<br \/>\n      sanction of the Collector can be subsequently regularised<br \/>\n      if  the  parties apply to the Collector for ex-post facto<br \/>\n      permission.  That decision was, of course, in the context<br \/>\n      of the provisions of Section  73AA  of  the  Bombay  Land<br \/>\n      Revenue Code, 1879, but the principle underlying the said<br \/>\n      provisions  would  be  applicable  to  any  other similar<br \/>\n      legislation such as  the  enactment  governing  the  land<br \/>\n      which is the subject matter of the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.\tIn view of the above, this petition  is  disposed<br \/>\n      of with a direction to the Collector, Mehsana, respondent<br \/>\n      No.   2  herein,  to  hear  and  decide  the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\n      application dated 5.6.1982 (Annexure &#8220;B&#8221; to the petition)<br \/>\n      and any other or further  representation  or  application<br \/>\n      which the petitioner may make to the Collector within one<br \/>\n      month from today and to decide the same after hearing all<br \/>\n      the affected  parties.    The  application\/representation<br \/>\n      shall be decided within six  months  from  today  without<br \/>\n      being  inhibited  by  the  order  dated  2.3.1982  of the<br \/>\n      Collector, Mehsana  and  order  dated  23.7.1985  of  the<br \/>\n      Secretary  (Appeals),  Revenue  Department, Government of<br \/>\n      Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.\tThe  petition  is  disposed  of  subject  to  the<br \/>\n      aforesaid direction.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tLater<br \/>\non, the Collector, Gandhinagar by order dated 18.10.2001 rejected the<br \/>\napplication of the petitioner on the ground that the Revenue<br \/>\nDepartment, Govt. of Gujarat, has not accepted the request to grant<br \/>\nthe said land being Survey No.975\/1 and even in appeal before the<br \/>\nPrincipal Secretary, Revision Application No.17\/2002 filed by the<br \/>\npetitioner, the order dated 18.10.2001 passed by the Collector,<br \/>\nGandhingar, came to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tShri<br \/>\nP.V. Hathi, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nspecifically contends as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>the<br \/>\n\torders dated 18.10.2001 and 5.5.2007 of the Collector, Gandhinagar<br \/>\n\tand Joint Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department are against the<br \/>\n\tdirection issued by this Hon&#8217;ble Court in earlier petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tsaid two orders are passed without giving any opportunity of hearing<br \/>\n\tto the petitioner even though there was a specific direction to give<br \/>\n\topportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>Both<br \/>\n\tthe orders are passed on the basis of the ex parte decision taken by<br \/>\n\tthe Revenue Department at Gandhingar without holding any inquiry or<br \/>\n\twithout giving any opportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>None<br \/>\n\tof the contentions raised by the petitioner in his applications were<br \/>\n\tconsidered by any of the authorities while passing the orders dated<br \/>\n\t18.10.2001 and 5.5.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.1.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, Shri P.V.Hathi, learned advocate for the<br \/>\npetitioner submits that the impugned orders are contrary to the<br \/>\ndirections given by this Court in the order dated 21.7.1999 passed in<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Application No. 5484\/1985 and deserves to be quashed<br \/>\nand set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>J.V.Bhairavia, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents<br \/>\nnamely respondents No. 3 and 4 and Mr. Vipul Mistry, learned AGP,<br \/>\nappearing for respondent No.1 submits that name of forefathers of the<br \/>\nrespondents as an occupant continued in the revenue record and in<br \/>\nview of inability on the part of the respondents, amount so<br \/>\ndetermined was not paid for some time and, therefore, they cannot be<br \/>\ndeprived of their right to hold land in question.  Learned advocate<br \/>\nfor the private respondents further submit that the transaction took<br \/>\nplace between the petitioner and their forefathers, is illegal and<br \/>\nperverse and, therefore, the orders passed do not deserve any<br \/>\ninterference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tHaving<br \/>\nheard learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the<br \/>\nfacts and submissions of the case, undisputed fact remains that<br \/>\ninspite of specific direction given by this Court in the order dated<br \/>\n21.7.1999 in Special Civil Application No.5484\/1985 to decide the<br \/>\napplication of the petitioner dated 5.6.1982 or any other further<br \/>\nrepresentation or application by the Collector within one month from<br \/>\nthat date after according an opportunity of  hearing, the impugned<br \/>\norder dated 18.10.2001 came to be passed by the Collector,<br \/>\nGandhinagar without hearing the petitioner and even in Revision<br \/>\nApplication No.17\/2002, though specifically urged before the<br \/>\nPrincipal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, that the above<br \/>\norder was in violation of principles of audi alteram partem, the<br \/>\norder passed by the Collector dated 18.10.2001 came to be confirmed<br \/>\nby the above authority on 5.5.2007 and, therefore, I am inclined to<br \/>\nallow the Special Civil Application on this limited ground of<br \/>\nviolation of principles of natural justice by directing the<br \/>\nCollector, Gandhinagar to hear the parties afresh after following<br \/>\nprocedure of law as established and pass an order in accordance with<br \/>\nlaw within six months from today without being influenced by the<br \/>\nprevious orders which may have been passed on earlier occasion.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.1.\tThe<br \/>\nresult of the above discussion is that the impugned orders at<br \/>\nAnnexure F and G i.e. the order dated 18.10.2001 and 5.5.2007 and the<br \/>\norder dated 19.9.2000 passed by the Revenue Department of Govt. of<br \/>\nGujarat rejecting the proposal of the Collector to grant the suit<br \/>\nland to the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside and the<br \/>\nrespondents are directed to hear the parties afresh in accordance<br \/>\nwith law.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tPetition<br \/>\nis allowed to the aforesaid directions.  Rule is made absolute.\n<\/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 Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008 Author: Anant S. Dave,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2919020\/2007 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29190 of 2007 ============================================ DAHYABHAI HATHIBHAI PATEL &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 3 &#8211; Respondent(s) ============================================ [&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-146601","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008 - 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\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-10T12:26:05+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\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-10T12:26:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1535,\"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\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-10T12:26:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 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":"Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008 - 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\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-10T12:26:05+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\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-10T12:26:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008"},"wordCount":1535,"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\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008","name":"Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-10T12:26:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dahyabhai vs State on 21 October, 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\/146601","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=146601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146601\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}