{"id":185094,"date":"2010-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-05T23:47:45","modified_gmt":"2016-05-05T18:17:45","slug":"vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&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\/1976\/2001\t 5\/ 7\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. 1976 of 2001\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH  \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 ?\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\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\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 ?\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 ?\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 ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n===================================\n\n\n \n\nVASANTLAL\nNAROTTAMDAS PACHCHIGAR - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n===================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nASPI M KAPADIA for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR. MENGDEY, AGP for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 3, \nMS KJ\nBRAHMBHATT for Respondent(s) : 4, \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 M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\nthe petitioner father of the respondent No. 4 has prayed for an<br \/>\nappropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the<br \/>\nimpugned order dated 11.4.2000 passed by the respondent No. 3 and the<br \/>\norder dated 20.12.2000 passed by the respondent no. 2 respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\ndispute is with respect to the mutation entry with respect to the<br \/>\nproperty bearing City Survey Nos. 699, 700 and 701 situated at Surat.<br \/>\nIt is also required to be noted that the dispute is between the<br \/>\nfather and son. That the respondent No. 4 herein- son submitted<br \/>\napplication before the City Survey Superintendent, Surat to enter his<br \/>\nname in the city survey record with respect to the aforesaid<br \/>\nproperties as joint owner\/co-owner vide application dated 25.6.1996.<br \/>\nIt appears that it was the case on behalf of the respondent No. 4<br \/>\nthat all the aforesaid properties is ancestral properties, more<br \/>\nparticularly, property bearing City Survey No. 700 and 701 and so far<br \/>\nas the property bearing City Survey No. 699 is concerned, it has been<br \/>\npurchased by the petitioner herein- his father from the funds\/<br \/>\namounts out of joint family business. That the City Survey<br \/>\nSuperintendent, Surat vide reply dated 4.7.1996 informed the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 4 herein that only on producing the registered<br \/>\ndocument further proceedings can be initiated to enter his name as<br \/>\njoint \/ co-owner and accordingly filed the aforesaid application.<br \/>\nBeing aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid communication of<br \/>\nthe City Survey Superintendent, Surat dated 4.7.1996, respondent no.<br \/>\n4 herein preferred CTS Appeal No. 110 of 1996 and Deputy Collector,<br \/>\nChoryasi Prant, Surat by an order dated 11.4.2000 allowed the said<br \/>\nappeal directing to enter the name of the respondent no. 4 as well as<br \/>\nwidow of another son of the petitioner and his sons as co-owners in<br \/>\nthe City Survey Record with respect to the aforesaid properties by<br \/>\nholding that the said properties are ancestral properties. Being<br \/>\naggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy<br \/>\nCollector, Choryasi Prant dated 11\/4\/2000 passed in CTS Appeal No.<br \/>\n110 of 1996, the petitioner preferred a further appeal being CTS<br \/>\nAppeal No. 14 of 2000 before the Collector Surat and the Collector,<br \/>\nSurat by impugned order dated 20.12.2000 dismissed the said appeal<br \/>\nconfirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat dated<br \/>\n11\/4\/2000. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders<br \/>\npassed by both the authorities below, the petitioner has preferred<br \/>\nthe present Special Civil Application  under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India and the said application came to be admitted by<br \/>\nthis Court as far as back on 19.3.2001 and the learned Single Judge<br \/>\nalso granted ad-interim relief staying implementation, operation of<br \/>\nthe order passed by both the authorities below and the said<br \/>\nad-interim relief has came to be confirmed by this Court on 1.8.2001<br \/>\nand the said interim relief has been continued till date.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tShri<br \/>\nKapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted<br \/>\nthat the orders passed by both the authorities below directing to<br \/>\nenter the name of the respondent no. 4 and others by further holding<br \/>\nthat the property in question are ancestral properties is absolutely<br \/>\nillegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that as such the<br \/>\nauthorities dealing with the dispute with respect to the mutation<br \/>\nentry in the revenue record and \/ or in the city survey record is not<br \/>\nrequired to enter into the disputed question of title and\/ or<br \/>\nadjudicate upon the rights of the  respective parties in the property<br \/>\nin question. It is submitted that if there is any dispute between the<br \/>\nparties with respect to rights of the respective parties in the<br \/>\nproperty, it is the only Civil Court who has got the jurisdiction to<br \/>\nadjudicate and decide the same. It is submitted that in the present<br \/>\ncase the said exercise has been done by the Deputy Collector while<br \/>\nconsidering the dispute with respect to entry in the city survey<br \/>\nrecord which is not permissible at all and therefore, it is submitted<br \/>\nthat impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant,<br \/>\nSurat confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Surat is without<br \/>\njurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Shri Kapadia,<br \/>\nlearned advocate for the has also tried to make submission on merits<br \/>\nin support of his case on behalf of the petitioner that the<br \/>\nproperties in question, more particularly property being city survey<br \/>\nno. 699 is self acquired property and so far as other properties are<br \/>\nconcerned, the names of the respondent no. 4 and other as co-owners<br \/>\nduring the lifetime of the petitioner cannot be entered into and\/ or<br \/>\nthe respondent no. 4  and others have no right. However, for the<br \/>\nreasons stated hereinafter this Court is not inclined to enter into<br \/>\nthe dispute with respect to the rights of the respective parties and<br \/>\n\/ or with respect to the status of the property in question whether<br \/>\nthey are ancestral properties and\/ or whether respective parties have<br \/>\nright title or interest in the properties in question or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tPetition<br \/>\nis opposed by Ms. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the respondent<br \/>\nno.4. A preliminary objection is raised with respect to<br \/>\nmaintainability of the present petition straightway challenging the<br \/>\norder passed by the Collector instead of preferring Revision<br \/>\nApplication under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code before<br \/>\nthe Secretary (Appeals), State of Gujarat. Learned advocate for the<br \/>\nrespondent no. 4 has also tried to make submission on merits in<br \/>\nsupport of her submission that all the properties in question are<br \/>\nancestral properties, however, as the learned advocate for the<br \/>\npetitioner is not permitted to make submission on merits with respect<br \/>\nto rights of the respective parties and the status of the property in<br \/>\nquestion, for the reasons stated above and for the reasons stated<br \/>\nhereinafter this Court does not propose to enter into the larger<br \/>\nquestion on merits with respect to right, title or interest of the<br \/>\nrespective parties and the status of the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tHaving<br \/>\nheard the learned advocates for the respective parties and<br \/>\nconsidering the nature of controversy, it appears that the dispute is<br \/>\nwith respect to the mutation entry \/ entry in the property card.<br \/>\nThere are rival claim by the respective parties with respect to the<br \/>\nstatus of the properties in question and  according to the<br \/>\npetitioner-father the properties in question are not ancestral<br \/>\nproperty and they are self acquired property and \/ or during the<br \/>\nlifetime with respect to some of the properties respondent no. 4 and<br \/>\nothers have no right, title or interest in the land in question.<br \/>\nHowever, on the other hand, it is the case on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondent no. 4 that the properties in question are ancestral<br \/>\nproperty and, therefore, their names are required to be entered into<br \/>\nthe city survey record. As held by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court as well as<br \/>\nthis Court in catena of decisions entry in the revenue record and\/ or<br \/>\nin the city survey record does not confer any right, title or<br \/>\ninterest in favour of the persons whose name is entered into the<br \/>\nrecord, solely on that basis and that the entry in the revenue record<br \/>\n\/ record is for fiscal purpose for recovering the revenue \/ taxes.<br \/>\nAny dispute with respect to right, title or interest in the land \/<br \/>\nproperty and\/ or status of the properties whether it is ancestral<br \/>\nproperty or self acquired property, it is to be resolved only through<br \/>\nthe Civil Court by filing substantive suit and getting the rights<br \/>\ncrystallized and necessary entry in the record can be made on the<br \/>\nbasis of the decree that may be passed by the Civil Court. However,<br \/>\nthe authorities in the proceedings with respect to mutation entry has<br \/>\nno jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the rights between the<br \/>\nparties. Under the circumstances, impugned orders passed by both the<br \/>\nauthorities below holding and declaring the property bearing survey<br \/>\nnos. 699, 700 and 701 as ancestral properties, are without<br \/>\njurisdiction. If the petitioner or the respondent no. 4 has any<br \/>\ndispute with respect to the status of the properties and\/ or right<br \/>\ntitle or interest in the property in question they are required to<br \/>\napproach  the Civil Court for establishing their rights and necessary<br \/>\nentries can be made in the city survey record on the basis of the<br \/>\ndecree that may be passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tWith<br \/>\nrespect to the objection raised by Ms. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate<br \/>\nfor the respondent no.4 with respect to maintainability of present<br \/>\npetition straightway challenging the order passed by the Collector<br \/>\ninstead of preferring revision application before the Revisional<br \/>\nAuthority i.e. Secretary (Appeal) Revenue Department, State of<br \/>\nGujarat, it is to be noted that present petition is of the year 2001<br \/>\nand which came to be entertained and admitted by this Court and this<br \/>\nCourt at the relevant time and therefore, after a period of almost 9<br \/>\nyears, petition cannot be dismissed on the aforesaid ground by<br \/>\nrelegating the petitioner to approach the revisional authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition<br \/>\nsucceeds. The impugned order dated 11.4.2000 passed by the respondent<br \/>\nNo. 3 and the order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the respondent no. 2<br \/>\nare hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is observed that solely<br \/>\non the basis of the name of the petitioner in the city survey record<br \/>\nit will not be open for the petitioner to contend that the respondent<br \/>\nNo. 4 and other persons have no right, title or interest in the land<br \/>\nin question and \/ or same are not ancestral properties and \/ or same<br \/>\nis self acquired property, solely on the basis of said entry.<br \/>\nSimilarly, by not entering the names of the respondent no. 4 and<br \/>\nothers it also may not be construed that they have no right, title or<br \/>\ninterest in the property in question. With respect to the  dispute<br \/>\nbetween the parties with respect to the status of the properties in<br \/>\nquestion and right, title and interest of the respective parties<br \/>\nparties in the property in question, parties are relegated to<br \/>\napproach the Civil Court by way of substantive suit and it is<br \/>\nobserved that on the basis of the decision that may be taken by the<br \/>\nCivil Court, necessary entry shall be made in the city survey record.<br \/>\nRule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(M.R.SHAH,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>kaushik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1976\/2001 5\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1976 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH =================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-185094","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 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\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-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=\"2010-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-05T18:17:45+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T18:17:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1692,\"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\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T18:17:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 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\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-05T18:17:45+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T18:17:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010"},"wordCount":1692,"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\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010","name":"Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T18:17:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantlal-vs-state-on-8-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vasantlal vs State on 8 February, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/185094","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=185094"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185094\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185094"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185094"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185094"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}