{"id":161945,"date":"2010-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-24T23:31:38","modified_gmt":"2019-01-24T18:01:38","slug":"patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Patel vs Deputy on 11 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Patel vs Deputy on 11 October, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4998\/2010\t 5\/ 8\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. 4998 of 2010\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPATEL\nAMBARAMBHAI NARSINHBHAI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDEPUTY\nCOLLECTOR &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSL VAISHYA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. \nMS\nJIRGA JHAVERI, AGP for Respondent(s) :\n3, \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 11\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\nleaned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording<br \/>\nto petitioner, he has purchased an old constructed house and it was<br \/>\npurchased by sale deed dated 5th June 2001 being<br \/>\nregistered No.1687. Respondent No.1 has assessed the valuation of the<br \/>\nproperty Rs.4,43,400\/-, but, it was purchased by petitioner in<br \/>\nRs.1,90,000\/-. Accordingly, stamp duty was affixed Rs.19,000\/-. But,<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 passed an order of deficit stamp duty Rs.25,590\/-,<br \/>\ntherefore, 25% amount has been deposited before appellate authority<br \/>\nand appeal was preferred against that order passed by Deputy<br \/>\nCollector which has been confirmed by appellate authority while<br \/>\nexercising power under Section 53(1) of Bombay Stamp Act dated 15th<br \/>\nDecember, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Vaishya submitted that respondent authorities have<br \/>\ncommitted gross error in determining market price of land in<br \/>\nquestion, for that, there was no base has been discussed by<br \/>\nrespondent authority and therefore, present petition has been<br \/>\npreferred by petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nAGP Ms. Jhaveri submitted that Deputy Collector, Palanpur has decided<br \/>\nmatter by order dated 26th December 2001 as market value<br \/>\nor price which has been fixed by petitioner is found to be inadequate<br \/>\nunder Section 32(A), therefore, documents   sale deed has been sent<br \/>\nfor proper determination of market price to Deputy Collector and<br \/>\nthereafter, market price has been fixed on the basis of &#8216;Jantri&#8217;<br \/>\nprevailing at relevant time for the properties which are situated in<br \/>\narea. Before that, notice was served to petitioner, but, no evidence<br \/>\nhas been produced by petitioner on what basis market price of the<br \/>\nland in question has been fixed being a consideration to be received<br \/>\nwhile sale deed has been executed between parties. Therefore, market<br \/>\nprice of the land in question has been determined by Deputy Collector<br \/>\nrightly which was found to be deficit stamp duty. Accordingly, it has<br \/>\nbeen worked out by Deputy Collector. For that, Deputy Collector is<br \/>\nhaving power and jurisdiction to decide, therefore, Deputy Collector<br \/>\nhas not committed any error in passing such order. Similarly, Chief<br \/>\nControlling Revenue Authority has examined appeal being No.<br \/>\nStamp\/Appeal\/53(1)-168 of 2001 and after giving reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing to petitioner   Ambaram Narsinhbhai Patel,<br \/>\nbut, no record or evidence has been produced before Chief Controlling<br \/>\nRevenue Authority inspite of number of opportunities were given to<br \/>\npetitioner on 29th November 2006, 13th June<br \/>\n2007, 1st March 2008, 26th June 2008 and 7th<br \/>\nJuly 2009. Therefore, property which has been situated in resident<br \/>\narea and also being a original old house and considering construction<br \/>\ncost as well as &#8216;Jantri&#8217; of relevant period which has been found to<br \/>\nbe reasonable to fix market price of the land in question including<br \/>\nconstruction comes to Rs.4,43,400\/- and deficit stamp duty comes to<br \/>\nRs.25,590\/- after including cost of fine of Rs.250\/-. Once the<br \/>\npetitioner is not able to justify market price fixed in sale deed of<br \/>\nthe property in question, then, Deputy Collector has rightly<br \/>\nconsidered market price of the property in question which has been<br \/>\nrightly confirmed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority while<br \/>\nexercising power under Section 53(1) of Bombay Stamp Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Vaishya further submitted that in interest part also,<br \/>\nthis Court may interfere, but, this Court cannot interfere in the<br \/>\norder passed by both authorities where no infirmity has been pointed<br \/>\nout by learned advocate Mr. Vaishya.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\naccording to my opinion, contentions which has been raised by learned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Vaishya cannot be accepted, because, before Deputy<br \/>\nCollector as well as Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, no record<br \/>\nas well as document has been produced to justify market price fixed<br \/>\nin sale deed by both parties. Therefore, market price which has been<br \/>\nfixed by Deputy Collector is found to be reasonable, just and proper<br \/>\nafter considering price of land as well as price of building on the<br \/>\nbasis of prevailing policy of State Government. Therefore,<br \/>\ncontentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Vaishya cannot be<br \/>\naccepted, hence, rejected. No error is committed or no illegality or<br \/>\ninfirmity is committed by either of authority which requires<br \/>\ninterference by this Court while exercising power under Article<br \/>\n226\/227 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot act as an<br \/>\nappellate authority while exercising powers of judicial review which<br \/>\ncan be limited upto decision making process as decided by Apex Court<br \/>\nin case of Union of India and Anr. V\/s. K.G. Soni<br \/>\nreported in (2006) 6 SCC 794. The relevant Para<br \/>\n13 and 14 are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> 13.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/107483\/\">In<br \/>\nUnion of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham<\/a> (1997 [7] SCC 463), this<br \/>\nCourt summed up the position relating to proportionality in<br \/>\nparagraphs 31 and 32, which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> 31.\tThe<br \/>\ncurrent position of proportionality in administrative law in England<br \/>\nand India can be summarized as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)\tTo<br \/>\njudge the validity of any administrative order or statutory<br \/>\ndiscretion, normally the Wednesbury test is to be applied to find out<br \/>\nif the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improprieties<br \/>\nor was one which no sensible decision-maker could, on the material<br \/>\nbefore him and within the framework of the law, have arrived at. The<br \/>\ncourt would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into<br \/>\naccount or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or<br \/>\nwhether the action was not bona fide. The court would also consider<br \/>\nwhether the decision was absurd or perverse. The court would not<br \/>\nhowever go into the correctness of the choice made by the<br \/>\nadministrator amongst the various alternatives open to him.  Nor<br \/>\ncould the court substitute its decision to that of the administrator.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\nis the Wednesbury (1948 1 KB 223) test.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tThe<br \/>\ncourt would not interfere with the administrator s decision unless<br \/>\nit was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was<br \/>\nirrational  in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic<br \/>\nor moral standards. The possibility of other tests, including<br \/>\nproportionality being brought into English administrative law in<br \/>\nfuture is not ruled out.  These are the CCSU (1985 AC 374)<br \/>\nprinciples.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)(a)<br \/>\nAs per Bugdaycay (1987 AC 514), Brind (1991 (1) AC 696) and Smith<br \/>\n(1996 (1) All ER 257) as long as the Convention is not incorporated<br \/>\ninto English law, the English courts merely exercise a secondary<br \/>\njudgment to find out if the decision-maker could have, on the<br \/>\nmaterial before him, arrived at the primary judgment in the manner he<br \/>\nhas done.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)(b)<br \/>\nIf the Convention is incorporated in England making available the<br \/>\nprinciple of proportionality, then the English courts will render<br \/>\nprimary judgment on the validity of the<\/p>\n<p>administrative<br \/>\naction and find out if the restriction is disproportionate or<br \/>\nexcessive or is not based upon a fair balancing of the fundamental<br \/>\nfreedom and the need for the restriction thereupon.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)(a)<br \/>\nThe position in our country, in administrative law, where no<br \/>\nfundamental freedoms as aforesaid are involved, is that the<br \/>\ncourts\/tribunals will only play a secondary role while the primary<br \/>\njudgment as to reasonableness will remain with the executive or<br \/>\nadministrative authority.  The secondary judgment of the court is to<br \/>\nbe based on Wednesbury and CCSU principles as stated by Lord Greene<br \/>\nand Lord Diplock respectively to find if the executive or<br \/>\nadministrative authority has reasonably arrived at his decision as<br \/>\nthe primary authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)(b)<br \/>\nWhether in the case of administrative or executive action affecting<br \/>\nfundamental freedoms, the courts in our country will apply the<br \/>\nprinciple of  proportionality  and assume a primary role, is left<br \/>\nopen, to be decided in an appropriate case where such action is<br \/>\nalleged to offend fundamental freedoms. It will be then necessary to<br \/>\ndecide whether the courts will have a primary role only if the<br \/>\nfreedoms under Articles 19, 21 etc. are involved and not for Article\n<\/p>\n<p>14. <\/p>\n<p>14.\tThe<br \/>\ncommon thread running through in all these decisions is that the<br \/>\nCourt should not interfere with the administrator s decision unless<br \/>\nit was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was<br \/>\nshocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in<br \/>\ndefiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated<br \/>\nin the Wednesbury s case (supra) the Court would not go into the<br \/>\ncorrectness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and<br \/>\nthe Court should not  substitute its decision to that of the<br \/>\nadministrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the<br \/>\ndeficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\nthere is no substance in present petition. Accordingly, present<br \/>\npetition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#Dave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Patel vs Deputy on 11 October, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4998\/2010 5\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4998 of 2010 ========================================================= PATEL AMBARAMBHAI NARSINHBHAI &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR &amp; 2 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR [&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-161945","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>Patel vs Deputy on 11 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\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patel vs Deputy on 11 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-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=\"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-24T18:01:38+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patel vs Deputy on 11 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-24T18:01:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1386,\"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\\\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Patel vs Deputy on 11 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-24T18:01:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patel vs Deputy on 11 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":"Patel vs Deputy on 11 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\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patel vs Deputy on 11 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-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":"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-24T18:01:38+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patel vs Deputy on 11 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-24T18:01:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010"},"wordCount":1386,"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\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010","name":"Patel vs Deputy on 11 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-24T18:01:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-deputy-on-11-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patel vs Deputy on 11 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\/161945","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=161945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}