{"id":163883,"date":"2008-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-11-20T03:03:29","modified_gmt":"2018-11-19T21:33:29","slug":"balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Balendu vs State on 22 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Balendu vs State on 22 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Jayant Patel<\/div>\n<pre>  \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\/914220\/2008\t 7\/ 7\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. 9142 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nBALENDU\nDINKARRAI SWADIYA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nNV ANJARIA for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMS BHAVIKA\nKOTECHA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nNone 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 JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner by this petition has prayed for the writ to quash and set<br \/>\n\taside the decision of the respondent authority in dividing two<br \/>\n\thomogeneous class of earthquake affected person, viz. one who had<br \/>\n\tlost their residential property by paying compensation and the one<br \/>\n\twho shifted elsewhere from the original place at the relocation<br \/>\n\tside, wherein, the plot was given to them.  The petitioner has<br \/>\n\talready prayed for other consequential reliefs including for<br \/>\n\tdirecting the respondent authority to pay compensation to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner as per the provisions of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban<br \/>\n\tDevelopment Act (hereinafter  the Act ).\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMr. Anjaria, learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tcontention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the State<br \/>\n\tcould not discriminate amongst two classes of the persons who are<br \/>\n\tsimilarly situated for holding of the property which is included in<br \/>\n\tthe Scheme.  It was submitted that merely because the petitioner<br \/>\n\topted for surrendering of the plot and allotment of plot at the<br \/>\n\trelocated site pursuant to the Govt. Resolution dated 24.04.2001,<br \/>\n\twould not enable the Government to classify differently thereby to<br \/>\n\tdeprive the petitioner from payment of compensation as per the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of the Act. It was submitted that if the petitioner after<br \/>\n\tsurrendering of the plot also continues to be the owner and in the<br \/>\n\tscheme under the Act, the petitioner would be entitled to the<br \/>\n\tcompensation and at the most, the price of the land which is<br \/>\n\tadjusted at the time of relocation of the plot may be deducted.  It<br \/>\n\twas also submitted that all owners of the property which are<br \/>\n\tincluded in the Scheme are of same class and differential treatment<br \/>\n\tcannot be given based on the GR dated 24.04.2001, which is only by<br \/>\n\tway of an executive fiat and no statutory provision is in existence<br \/>\n\tand therefore, consequently,  the action may also be violative of<br \/>\n\tArticle 300A of the Constitution.  It was therefore submitted that<br \/>\n\tthis Court may interfere.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having<br \/>\n\tconsidered the above, it deserves to be recorded that after the<br \/>\n\tearthquake, the Government came out with the scheme vide Resolution<br \/>\n\tdated 24.04.2001 in all earthquake affected area and more<br \/>\n\tparticularly in Kutch district which was heavily affected by<br \/>\n\tearthquake.  The Scheme inter alia provided that in the old town<br \/>\n\twhere the persons were holding the property, on account of the<br \/>\n\tearthquake, after damage or otherwise, if they were desirous to<br \/>\n\tsurrender the property, they would be allotted a separate plot at<br \/>\n\tthe reallocation site at a concessional rate and while recovering<br \/>\n\tthe price of such plot at the relocation, set off shall be given of<br \/>\n\tthe price at Rs.300\/- per sq. mtr. of the property which existed in<br \/>\n\toriginal town and affected by the earthquake.  The aforesaid is<br \/>\n\tapparent from the Scheme of the resolution dated 24.04.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner opted for the benefit of the Scheme and surrendered the<br \/>\n\tproperty in the old town which was affected by earthquake and it is<br \/>\n\tan admitted position that the petitioner is allotted a plot at<br \/>\n\treallocation site and while recovering the price of such plot at<br \/>\n\treallocation site, the set off has been given of the amount and only<br \/>\n\tdifference was to be recovered.  In case of the petitioner, there<br \/>\n\twas surplus amount of Rs.1510\/- and therefore, no difference is even<br \/>\n\trecovered.  It also appears that thereafter, the scheme is floated<br \/>\n\tin the town of Bhuj under the Act, but as in the revenue record, the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner continued as the owner, the notices were issued under the<br \/>\n\tAct for fixation of the compensation and the petitioner is now<br \/>\n\tclaiming that the compensation be paid to him as if he is owner of<br \/>\n\tthe property as per the Scheme of the Act.  It may be recorded that<br \/>\n\tduring the course of the hearing, to test the genuineness of the<br \/>\n\tsubmission and thereby to examine the bonafide on the part of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner, a query was put to the learned counsel for the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner that whether the petitioner would like to surrender the<br \/>\n\tplot allotted at reallocation site pursuant to the Govt. Resolution<br \/>\n\tso that the matter could be considered for directing the authority<br \/>\n\tfor payment of compensation in accordance with law as per the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of the Act.  However, the learned counsel was not in a<br \/>\n\tposition to make such declaration and he contended that if the said<br \/>\n\tplot is surrendered, the petitioner will have no space to occupy and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, such declaration cannot be given.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\taforesaid shows that the petitioner who is beneficiary of the<br \/>\n\tGovernment Resolution dated 24.04.2001, when had to take benefit of<br \/>\n\tthe Scheme of the earthquake affected person, had no objection in<br \/>\n\tsurrendering the plot to the Government for obtaining another plot<br \/>\n\tat the relocation site and also the benefit of the adjustment of the<br \/>\n\tprice as was fixed vide the said resolution for the surrendered<br \/>\n\tproperty.  Once the property was surrendered by getting the proper<br \/>\n\tamount as compensation by way of adjustment at the time of allotment<br \/>\n\tof new plot at relocation site, the petitioner cannot be heard to<br \/>\n\tsay that he continues to be the owner of the property which is<br \/>\n\talready surrendered by him. Not only that, but having taken the<br \/>\n\tbenefit of allotment of the plot at the relocation site, if such<br \/>\n\tcontention is entertained, it would result into approbating and<br \/>\n\treprobating at the same time and it would enable the party to take<br \/>\n\tundue benefit of his own conduct, more particularly, when the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has shown disinclination to surrender the plot at the<br \/>\n\trelocation site.  It is hardly required to be stated that one who<br \/>\n\thas enjoyed the benefit of the policy of the Government cannot be<br \/>\n\theard to say at the later stage that such policy is<br \/>\n\tunconstitutional, more particularly when the benefit procured by him<br \/>\n\tpursuant to such policy is not surrendered by such person.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner once having taking the benefit of the policy, as observed<br \/>\n\tearlier, could not be continued to hold the property as the property<br \/>\n\twas surrendered to the Government\/authority and as a consequence<br \/>\n\tthereof, no compensation could be claimed by the petitioner as if<br \/>\n\tthe owner of the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tcontention that by executive fiat, vide Govt. Resolution dated<br \/>\n\t24.04.2001, the ownership of the property could not be taken away<br \/>\n\tand the action therefore would be violative of Article 300A of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that after<br \/>\n\thaving surrendered the property, the petitioner could not be said as<br \/>\n\tcontinued to hold the property.  Further, once the  scheme has come<br \/>\n\tinto existence as per the provisions of the Act, the property would<br \/>\n\tat the first hand vest to the authority and the plots are to be<br \/>\n\treallotted under the scheme at the time of finalisation.  It is true<br \/>\n\tthat if the property is taken in the scheme, the owner may be<br \/>\n\tentitled for compensation, but when the petitioner had already<br \/>\n\tsurrendered the property to the authority pursuant to the Govt.<br \/>\n\tResolution dated 24.04.2001 and thereby, having already taken the<br \/>\n\tbenefit for allotment of a new plot at the relocation site, it<br \/>\n\tcannot be said that as per the provisions of the Act, the petitioner<br \/>\n\twill continue to hold the property enabling him to get the<br \/>\n\tcompensation, more particularly when the petitioner is not ready to<br \/>\n\tsurrender the plot allotted to him at the relocation site.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\taforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that if such a contention<br \/>\n\tis entertained from the mouth of the person who has taken the<br \/>\n\tbenefit of the policy, it would result into permitting the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner to take undue benefit therefrom and therefore, can be<br \/>\n\tsaid as one of the valid ground to decline the entertainment of the<br \/>\n\tpetition for invoking equitable jurisdiction of this Court under<br \/>\n\tArticle 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the above, no case is made out for interference.  Hence,<br \/>\n\trejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (JAYANT PATEL, J.)<\/p>\n<p>*bjoy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Balendu vs State on 22 August, 2008 Bench: Jayant Patel SCA\/914220\/2008 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9142 of 2008 ========================================================= BALENDU DINKARRAI SWADIYA &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 2 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NV ANJARIA for Petitioner(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-163883","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>Balendu vs State on 22 August, 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\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balendu vs State on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-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=\"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-19T21:33:29+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\\\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balendu vs State on 22 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-19T21:33:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1319,\"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\\\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Balendu vs State on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-19T21:33:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balendu vs State on 22 August, 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":"Balendu vs State on 22 August, 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\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balendu vs State on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-19T21:33:29+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\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balendu vs State on 22 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-19T21:33:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008"},"wordCount":1319,"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\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008","name":"Balendu vs State on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-19T21:33:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balendu-vs-state-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balendu vs State on 22 August, 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\/163883","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=163883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}