{"id":168134,"date":"2011-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2"},"modified":"2018-12-22T20:25:34","modified_gmt":"2018-12-22T14:55:34","slug":"whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: H.R.Shelat,<\/div>\n
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n\n\n\n     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 9032 of 1993\n\n\n\n\n     For Approval and Signature:\n\n\n     Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE H.R.SHELAT     Sd\/-\n     ============================================================\n<\/pre>\n
     1.      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
\n             to see the judgements?    NO<\/p>\n
     2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?   NO<\/p>\n
    J\n<\/p>\n
     3.      Whether Their Lordships   wish to see the fair copy
\n             of the judgement?                         NO<\/p>\n
     4.      Whether this case involves a substantial question
\n             of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
\n             of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? NO<\/p>\n
     5.      Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?\n<\/p>\n
         NO\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
     MOHANSINH HIMATSINH MAHIDA
\nVersus
\n     STATE OF GUJARAT\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–
\n     Appearance:\n<\/p>\n
          MR MI HAVA for Petitioner
\n          MR.PS PARMAR ADDL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
\n          for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2<\/span><\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–
\n     CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.R.SHELAT
\n     Date of decision: 28\/10\/96<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGEMENT
\n     The    Joint   Secretary,   Revenue   Department,
\n     Gandhinagar, exercising powers under Sec.34 of the Urban
\n     Land Ceiling Act ( for short ‘the Act ‘) on 28th June
\n     1993 reviewed the order dt.   30\/11\/1987 passed by the
\n     competent authority and declared that in all 5662 sq.mts.
\n     of land was in excess of the ceiling limit.           The
\n         petitioner has by this petition called in question the
\n        said orders in question challenging its legality and
\n        propriety.\n<\/p>\n
        2.In short the case of the petitioner is that when
\n        the Act came into force, he was holding properties as
\n        follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        ——————————————————–
\n        Sr.VillageSurveyAreaUse\/Zone
\n        No.No.Sq.Mt.\n<\/p>\n
        ———————————————————\n<\/p>\n
        1.Amreli 6 334Residential\n<\/p>\n
        2. -do-Nondh No.70 563 -do- Kotharco\n<\/p>\n
        3. -do-77-78123 -do-\n<\/p>\n
        4.-do-7991 -do\n<\/p>\n
        5.-do- 80117Agricultural\n<\/p>\n
        6.-do-S.No.176677-do-\n<\/p>\n
        7.Chhapra7487 – -do-\n<\/p>\n
        Bhatta\n<\/p>\n
        8.-do-S.No.42\/ 3137Agri. Zone.\n<\/p>\n
2-3-4\n<\/p>\n
      9.-do-S.No.49\/2 5665Agri. Zone.\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
      23182\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ——————————————————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        He filled the form under Sec.6(1) of the Act declaring
\n        the properties he was having as stated above.         The
\n        competent authority, out of all the total areas of the
\n        properties to the tune of 23,182 sq.mts., deducted
\n        18,096.98 sq.mts. In Chhapra Bhatha village, there were
\n        three agricultural lands shown at Sr.Nos.7,8 and 9
\n        hereinabove and those agricultural lands being used as
\n        such and situated in agricultural Zone were also excluded
\n        for computation.    Accordingly the competent authority
\n        found that in all the petitioner was having 5085.02
\n        sq.mts. of    land   to be taken into account.        The
\n        petitioner was entitled to three Units as the land was
\n        held by joint family and there were 3 adult members in
\n        the family.. Each Unit was entitled to retain 1500
\n        sq.mts. of land.     He, therefore, deducted 4500 sq.mts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        there from and reached the conclusion that the petitioner
\n        was holding 585.02 sq.mts. of land in excess..        The
\n        Government then under Sec.      34 of the Act took up the
\n        matter under review. The Secretary who was reviewing the
\n        order found that the competent authority was not right in
\n        excluding 334 sq.mts. of land covered by the house shown
\n        at Sr.No.1, 91 sq.mts.      of land    covered   by   the
\n        construction of the house shown at Sr.No.4 and 60 sq.
\n        mts. out of 117 sq.mts. of land covered by the house
\n        shown at Sr.No.5. The land Survey No.17 shown at Sr.No.6
\n was at that time shown as agricultural land for which
\nexemption was sought for. That was granted, but lateron
\nthat exemption was withdrawn.      The total area of that
\nland at that time was 6677 sq.mts.    of land and that
\ntotal area has been considered while computing ceiling
\nthe limit by the Secretary, Revenue Department, though
\nthe competent authority considered the area of that land
\nto be of 565 sq.mts. because of the erosion soil and
\nacquisition of land for the purpose of road construction.
\nComputing accordingly, the Secretary, Revenue Department
\nfixed the total holdings of the petitioner at 7162
\nsq.mts. for the purpose of ceiling limit. Therefrom,
\naccording to him, the petitioner was entitled to 1500
\nsq.mts.   of land retainable by one Unit because, he was
\nof the view that every adult member in the family was not
\nseparately entitled to unit benefit, but they all were
\ncollectively as one unit entitled to the benefit. He,
\ntherefore, reached the conclusion that in all 5662
\nsq.mts.   of land was in excess of the ceiling limit.
\nAccordingly he passed the order which is under challenge
\nin this petition.\n<\/p>\n
3.   It was not disputed before me that agricultural land
\nused as such and falling within the agricultural Zone are
\nrequired to be excluded while computing the ceiling
\nlimit. Accordingly the lands shown at S.Nos. 7,8 and 9
\nhereinabove are required to be excluded. As per decision
\nin the case of Meera Gupta vs. State of West Bengal and
\nothers AIR 1992 SC 1567, the area of the land covered by
\nthe construction of the building prior to 17th February
\n1976 has to be excluded. Admittedly the house and cattle
\nshades shown at Sr.Nos. 1 to 5 were constructed on the
\nland prior to the Act came into force i.e. 17th February
\n1976. The area covered by the construction has to be
\nexcluded in toto.      Over and above such exclusion, land
\nappurtenant   to   the    construction   and    additional
\nappurtenant land are also required to be excluded from
\ncomputation as construction thereon is not permitted.In
\nview of such law, the computation now centers on the
\nproperty at bearing No.S.17 shown at S.No.6, hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
4.    By passage of time, there was gradual erosion of
\nsoil. The Government wanted to construct the road.
\nHence certain lands were acquired under Lnd Acquisition
\nAct. Eventually, therefore, the total area of land
\nbearing Survey No.17 came to be reduced to 5665 sq.mts.,
\nand that too before the Act came into force.    For the
\npurposeof computation, the said area has to be made the
\nbase and not the total area viz. 6677 sq.mts. of land.
\nAfter    the  land   was acquired, the road has been
\nconstructed and the same passes through the said land.
\n Owing to the road, certain lands on both the sides
\nthereof are not permitted to be used for the purpose of
\nconstruction.    Hence such lands are required to be
\nexcluded under the head Road Margin and Side Margin. The
\nSurveyor of Land Records Office, producing map before the
\ncompetent authority pointed out that the road margin land
\nwas admeasuring 250.70 sq.mts. and side margin land was
\nadmeasuring 864.28 sq.mts.    Thus total of both the side
\nlands comes to 1114.98 sq.mts.     The same has to be
\nexcluded, out of the total area of 5665 sq.mts. of land
\nOn doing so, the land admeasuring 4550.02         sq.mts.
\nremains on hand.\n<\/p>\n
5.The land formerly belonged to Himatsinh Gumansinh
\nand after his death, it was jointly held by his heirs
\nnamely Mohansinh Himatsinh, Maniben Himatsing and Laduben
\nHimatsinh. There were thus three members in the family
\nholding the properties jointly.      If the persons are
\njointly holding the property, each one adult member is to
\nbe considered as separate Unit independently entitled to
\nretain 1500 sq.mts. of land and not as single unit being
\nthe members of the joint family. I am fortified by a
\ndecision rendered in the case of Chhaganlal Trikamdas
\nThakker & Ors Vs.Competent Authority, Rajkot and Ors.
\n1994(1) GCD 1. If that land of three Units is deducted,
\nonly 50.02 sq.mts. of land remains on hand which can be
\nsaid to be the surplus land, but each of the three Units
\nis entitled to 10% of 1500 sq.mts. of land retainable as
\nmargin land.    If that is considered, no land remains on
\nhand which can be said to be in excess of the ceiling
\nlimit.   Instead of computing in the above stated manner,
\nthe competent authority and thereafter the Secretary,
\nRevenue Department, fell into error and misdirected
\nthemselves, as a result, the erroneous computation came
\ninto being.\n<\/p>\n
5.Faced with such situated, when a query was made,
\nMr. Sompura, learned AGP, could not point out how
\ncomputation made by both the authorities below was in
\nconsonance with law. He in his usual acondour conceded
\nthat in fact no land was in excess of the ceiling limit.\n<\/p>\n
6.It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
\nthat the land in question i.e. Survey No.17 has been
\ndeveloped and it is divided into several plots.       The
\nplots are sold to the persons of middle income group.
\nThose persons have already constructed their dwelling
\nunits wherein they reside since 1993 or prior to it. In
\nview of the matter, no useful purpose would be served, if
\nthe matter is remanded for a fresh computation and even
\nif it is remanded, the computation would not be otherwise
\n than what is hereinabove computed.\n<\/p>\n
7.For   the foregoing reasons, the petition is
\nallowed. The order passed by the competent authority on
\n30th November, 1987, the copy of which is produced at
\nAnnexure A and the order dt. 20th June, 1993 passed by
\nthe Joint Secretary (Revenue), the copy of which is
\nproduced at Annexure : B are hereby quashed and set
\naside, and it is hereby declared that the petitioner does
\nnot hold any portion of land in excess of the ceiling
\nlimit under the Act. No costs in the circumstances of
\nthe case. Rule is made absolute accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
——<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011 Author: H.R.Shelat, IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 9032 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: Hon’ble MR.JUSTICE H.R.SHELAT Sd\/- ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? NO […]<\/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-168134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-22T14:55:34+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\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-22T14:55:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":1476,\"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\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-22T14:55:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-22T14:55:34+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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-22T14:55:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2"},"wordCount":1476,"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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2","name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-22T14:55:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-29-august-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 29 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/168134","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=168134"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168134\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}