{"id":163758,"date":"2010-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-20T22:04:32","modified_gmt":"2018-07-20T16:34:32","slug":"babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Babuji vs State on 23 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Babuji vs State on 23 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\/4195\/2010\t 13\/ 14\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. 4195 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHON'BLE\nSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\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 ? No\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 ? No\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 ? No\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 ? No\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 ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nBABUJI\nGANDAJI & 1 - THROUGH POA DIVYABEN PANKAJKUMAR PATHAK -\nPetitioners\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nNEHAL R JOSHI for\nPetitioners \nMR AMIT P.PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for\nRespondents \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\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tLeave
\n\tto amend the cause-title of the petition is granted. The amendment
\n\tmay be carried out forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Amit P.Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives
\n\tservice of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. On
\n\tthe facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent
\n\tof the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is
\n\tbeing heard and finally decided, today.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis
\n\tpetition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
\n\thas been preferred challenging order dated 04.02.2010, passed by the
\n\tSecretary, Revenue Department, in Revision Application No.17\/1998
\n\twhereby, order dated 22.12.1997, passed by the District Collector,
\n\tAhmedabad, has been confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tbrief facts of the case are that land bearing Survey No.424,
\n\tadmeasuring 5808 square metres, situated at Village: Gota, Taluka:
\n\tDascroi, District: Ahmedabad, is new tenure land, and is shown to be
\n\tin the occupation of the predecessors-in-interest of the
\n\tpetitioners, as per revenue records. The petitioners Nos.1\/1 and 1\/2
\n\tare the heirs and legal representatives of
\n\tdeceased Shantaben Gandaji Thakore. The said land has been granted
\n\tfor agriculture use, with certain conditions. It appears that
\n\twithout taking the prior permission of the State Government or
\n\tpaying the requisite amount of premium, the petitioners started
\n\tusing the said land for non-agricultural purposes, in contravention
\n\tof the conditions of grant. On the basis of the report of the Deputy
\n\tCollector, Viramgam Prant, the Collector, Ahmedabad, initiated
\n\tproceedings against the petitioners for breach of conditions of
\n\tgrant. By order dated 22.12.1997, the Collector, Ahmedabad, came to
\n\tthe conclusion that there was a breach of conditions of grant, and
\n\tdirected the land to be forfeited to the State Government. Aggrieved
\n\tby the above-mentioned order of the Collector, the petitioners
\n\tapproached the State Government by filing the above-mentioned
\n\trevision application, which has been dismissed by passing the
\n\timpugned order. In the above circumstances, the petitioners have
\n\tfiled the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Nehal
\n\tR.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners,
\n\thas submitted that although there are concurrent findings of both
\n\tthe authorities below against the petitioners, however, they are
\n\tready and willing to pay the full amount of premium at the
\n\tprevailing market price.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis further submitted that as per Section 67 of the Bombay Land
\n\tRevenue Code, 1879 ( the Code  for short), the Collector has the
\n\tpower to grant permission, as per Rules. As the land in question
\n\tcannot be used by the petitioners for agricultural purposes, and as
\n\tthe petitioners are doing the business of marble and granite on the
\n\tsaid land, the respondents may be directed to accept the amount of
\n\tpremium and grant non-agricultural use permission in respect of the
\n\tsaid land, to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in
\n\tfact, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners by
\n\tthe Collector and even otherwise, the case of the petitioners has
\n\tnot been properly defended by the learned advocate appearing for
\n\tthem before the authorities
\n\tbelow, therefore, the petitioners should not be penalized for that.
\n\tOn the basis of the above submissions, it is prayed that the
\n\tpetition be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\tNo
\n\tother submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the
\n\tpetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn
\n\tthe other hand, Mr.Amit Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader
\n\tfor the respondents, has supported the orders of the District
\n\tCollector and the State Government, respectively, by submitting that
\n\tample opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners,
\n\twhich is obvious from a perusal of the impugned order. The request
\n\tof the petitioners in the proceedings before the State Government to
\n\tthe effect that they are ready and willing to pay the full amount of
\n\tpremium at the prevailing rate has been rejected and the order of
\n\tthe Collector has been upheld. It is prayed by the learned Assistant
\n\tGovernment Pleader that the petition be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\n\thave heard the learned counsel for the respective
\n\tparties, perused the averments made in
\n\tthe petition, contents of the impugned order and other documents on
\n\trecord.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis an admitted position that the land in question is of new tenure,
\n\tand has been granted for agricultural use to the
\n\tpredecessors-in-title of the petitioners, subject to certain
\n\tconditions. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners are
\n\tusing said land for non-agricultural purposes, by running a marble
\n\tand granite business thereupon. Admittedly, no permission has been
\n\tobtained from the Collector, as required, before using the land for
\n\tnon-agricultural purposes. This aspect is not disputed by the
\n\tlearned counsel for the petitioners. As per the provisions of
\n\tSection 65 of the Code, breach of conditions of grant of new tenure
\n\tland would entail forfeiture to the Government, which order has been
\n\tpassed by the Collector and confirmed in revision by the impugned
\n\torder.\n<\/p>\n
\tA
\n\tsubmission has been advanced by the learned counsel
\n\tfor the petitioners that under the provisions of Section 67 of the
\n\tCode, the Collector is empowered to grant permission on such terms
\n\tand conditions as may be prescribed. In order to deal with the said
\n\tsubmission, it would be necessary to look into the relevant
\n\tprovisions of law, which are reproduced hereinbelow, for ready
\n\treference:\n<\/p>\n
\t 65.\tUse
\n\tto which occupant of land for purposes of agriculture may put his
\n\tland —\n<\/p>\n
\t1.\tAny
\n\toccupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture is
\n\tentitled by himself, his servants, tenants, agents or other legal
\n\trepresentatives, to erect farm-building, construct wells or tanks,
\n\tor make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of
\n\tthe land, or its more convenient use for the purpose aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
\tProcedure
\n\tif occupant wishes to apply his land to any other purpose —  But,
\n\tif any occupant wishes to use his holding or any part thereof for
\n\tany other purpose the Collector’s permission shall in the first
\n\tplace be applied for by the occupant. The Collector, on receipt of
\n\tsuch application,<\/p>\n
\t(a)\tshall
\n\tsend to the applicant a written acknowledgment of its receipt, and<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tmay,
\n\tafter due inquiry, either grant or refuse the permission applied
\n\tfor:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided
\n\tthat, where the Collector fails to inform the applicant of his
\n\tdecision on the application
\n\twithin a period of three months, the permission applied for shall be
\n\tdeemed to have been granted; such period shall, if the Collector
\n\tsends a written acknowledgment within seven days from the date of
\n\treceipt of the application, be reckoned from the date of the
\n\tacknowledgment, but in any other case it shall be reckoned from the
\n\tdate of receipt of the application.\n<\/p>\n
\tUnless
\n\tthe Collector shall in particular instances otherwise direct, no
\n\tsuch application shall be recognised except it be made by the
\n\toccupant.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tNotwithstanding
\n\tanything contained in sub-section (1) but subject to any terms and
\n\tconditions laid down by the State Government in this behalf where an
\n\toccupant has his holding in an area comprising a gram and such area
\n\tis not within an urban agglomeration or within a radius of five
\n\tkilometres from the limits of a municipal borough or notified area
\n\tor industrial estate and such occupant wishes to use his holding or
\n\ta part thereof only for the residential purpose, it shall not be
\n\tnecessary for him to obtain permission of the Collector under
\n\tsub-section (1)….\n<\/p>\n
\t 65A.\n<\/p>\n
\tProcedure if occupant wishes to apply his land from one
\n\tnon-agricultural purpose to another non-agricultural purpose
\n\tWhere the occupant of any land assessed or held for any
\n\tnon-agricultural purpose wishes to use such land or part thereof for
\n\tany other non-agricultural purpose, the Collector’s permission shall
\n\tin the first place be applied for by him and the provisions of
\n\tsection 65 shall, so far as may be, apply to such application….\n<\/p>\n
\t 66.\tPenalty
\n\tfor using land without permission   If any land referred to in
\n\tsection 65 or section 65A be used for any purpose other than the
\n\tpurpose for which such land is assessed or held without the
\n\tpermission of the collector being first obtained, or before the
\n\texpiry of three months referred to in section 65 or despite refusal
\n\tof permission during the said period of three months, then, without
\n\tprejudice to the occupant’s liability to pay the new assessment
\n\tleviable under section 48 or the conversion tax leviable under
\n\tsection 67A —\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)\tthe
\n\toccupant and any tenant or other person holding under or through him
\n\tshall be liable to be summarily evicted by the Collector from the
\n\tland so used and from the entire survey number or sub-division of
\n\tthe survey number of which it may form part;
\n\tand<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tthe
\n\toccupant shall also be liable to pay for the period during which the
\n\tsaid land has been so used, such fine as the Collector may, subject
\n\tto the general orders of the State Government, direct.\n<\/p>\n
\tAny
\n\ttenant of any occupant or any other person holding under or through
\n\tan occupant, who shall without the occupant’s consent use any such
\n\tland for any such purpose, and thereby render the said occupant
\n\tliable to the penalty aforesaid, shall be responsible to the said
\n\toccupant in damages.\n<\/p>\n
\t 67.\tPermission
\n\tmay be granted on terms   Nothing in sections 65, 65A and 66
\n\tshall prevent the granting of the permission aforesaid on such terms
\n\tor conditions as may be prescribed by the Collector, subject to any
\n\trules made in this behalf by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
\tSections
\n\t65 and 65A, of the Bombay Land Revenue Code detail the uses to which
\n\tthe recipient of land for the purpose of agricultural may put the
\n\tsaid land to, and the procedure required to be followed on an
\n\tapplication being made by the occupant if he wishes to apply the
\n\tland for any other purposes. Section 66 provides for penalty for
\n\tusing the land without permission. Section 67 enumerates the terms
\n\ton which the Collector may grant permission. A conjoint reading of
\n\tthe above provisions of law would go to show that if the occupant
\n\twishes to use the granted land for any purpose, other than
\n\tagricultural use, then it is incumbent upon him to obtain the
\n\tpermission of the Collector in the first instance. Section 67
\n\tempowers the Collector to grant permission as provided in the said
\n\tprovision, subject to rules made in this regard by the State
\n\tGovernment. For the provisions of Section 67 to come into play, it
\n\tis necessary that the occupant of the land (in this case, the
\n\tpetitioners) make an application as required in Section 65 of the
\n\tCode, for permission to apply the
\n\tland for any other purpose. It is only on an application being made
\n\tthat the powers under Section 67 can be exercised. It is an admitted
\n\tposition that such an application has not been made at all by the
\n\tpetitioners or their predecessors-in-interest. In the above
\n\tcircumstances, the provisions of Section 67 cannot be pressed into
\n\tservice as permission can only be granted if it is prayed for by way
\n\tof an application, as provided by the above-mentioned provision of
\n\tlaw. As no permission has been sought by the petitioners,
\n\tappropriate proceedings have been initiated against them, leading to
\n\tthe passing of the impugned orders. After passing of the order of
\n\tforfeiture of the land by the Collector, as confirmed by the State
\n\tGovernment in revision, it is not open to the petitioners at this
\n\tbelated stage to submit, that the Collector should be directed to
\n\tconsider the case of the petitioners for grant of permission under
\n\tSection 67 of the Code, without ever having applied for permission.\n<\/p>\n
\tRegarding
\n\tthe second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the
\n\tpetitioners, to the effect that no opportunity of hearing has been
\n\tgranted to them by the Collector, the same is stated to be rejected.
\n\tThe impugned order of the State Government meticulously enumerates
\n\tthe various dates on which adjournment was sought by the
\n\tpetitioners. It is mentioned therein that notice regarding
\n\tinitiation of proceedings for breach of condition by the occupants
\n\tof land was issued on 20.12.1995. The petitioners appeared on
\n\t02.01.1996 before the Collector and requested for time. Thereafter,
\n\ton 25.01.1996, 16.02.1996, 30.07.1996, 10.09.1996, 23.04.1996 and
\n\t13.05.1997, the petitioners themselves, and their advocate, have
\n\tprayed for adjournment. In the above circumstances, it is clear that
\n\tthe petitioners have been given ample opportunity to plead their
\n\tcase, and the submission to the contrary by the learned counsel for
\n\tthe petitioners is not supported by the record. Nor is it borne out
\n\tfrom the record, as contended on behalf of the petitioners, that
\n\ttheir learned advocate did not represent their case.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\thas been repeatedly submitted by the learned counsel for the
\n\tpetitioners that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the
\n\tfull amount of premium at the prevailing rate, as of today,
\n\ttherefore, this Court should direct the concerned authorities to
\n\taccept the same. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the
\n\treasons stated hereinabove. It was open to the petitioners to  have
\n\tmade an application as provided by law, to the Competent Authority,
\n\tat the relevant period of time, which has not been done, therefore,
\n\tdirections such as those sought by the petitioners cannot be issued
\n\tby this Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any
\n\tillegality or infirmity, so as to warrant interference.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tview of the above discussion, and for the afore-stated reasons,
\n\tthere is no merit in the petition, which deserves to be dismissed.
\n\tIt is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no
\n\torders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Smt.Abhilasha
\n\tKumari, J.)
\n\t (sunil) <\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Babuji vs State on 23 April, 2010 Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4195\/2010 13\/ 14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4195 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers […]<\/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-163758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBabuji vs State on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babuji vs State on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-20T16:34:32+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babuji vs State on 23 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T16:34:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2222,\"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\\\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Babuji vs State on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T16:34:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babuji vs State on 23 April, 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":"Babuji vs State on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babuji vs State on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-20T16:34:32+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babuji vs State on 23 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T16:34:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010"},"wordCount":2222,"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\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010","name":"Babuji vs State on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T16:34:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babuji-vs-state-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babuji vs State on 23 April, 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\/163758","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=163758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163758\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}