{"id":19048,"date":"2009-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-15T18:50:42","modified_gmt":"2015-11-15T13:20:42","slug":"anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: B.R. Gavai, N.D. Deshpande<\/div>\n
                                           1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT \n                             AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                       WRIT PETITION NO. 6959 OF 2008\n\n     1.      Anil Dattatraya Girme,\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n             Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Agril.,\n\n     2.      Ashok Dattatraya Girme,\n             Age : 54 Years, Occu. : Agril.,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     3.      Dilip Dattatraya Girme,\n             Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Agril.,\n                        \n     4.      Vijaya Ashok Pandhare,\n             Age : 58 Years, Occu. : Household,\n                       \n             Petitioners No. 1 to 4\n             R\/o Kopargaon, Near Fatherwadi,\n             Dist. Ahmednagar.\n      \n\n\n     5.      Shaila Vilas Kulkarni,\n   \n\n\n\n             Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Household,\n             R\/o Pune, Deccan Jimkhana.\n\n     6.      Ketan Vilas Kulkarni,\n\n\n\n\n\n             Age : 24 Years, Occu. : Service,\n             R\/o As above.                    ..    ..       ..       Petitioners\n\n                   Versus\n\n\n\n\n\n     1.      The State of Maharashtra\n\n     2.      Municipal Council, Kopargaon,\n             Through it's Chief Officer,\n             Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.\n\n     3.      Assistant Director of Town Planning,\n             Ahmednagar, At Post Tq. & Dist.\n             Ahmednagar.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:57:58 :::\n                                             2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n     4.     Deputy Director of Town Planning,\n            Nashik Division, Nashik.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n     5.     Director of Town Planning,\n            Maharashtra State, Central\n            Building, Pune.                            ..      ..       Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n     Shri A. P. Bhandari, Advocate h\/f Shri S. V. Gangapurwala, Advocate \n     for the Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     Shri K. G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5.\n                        \n     Shri M. M. Patil Beedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.\n                       \n                                 CORAM :        B. R. GAVAI, AND\n                                                N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                 DATE     :     31ST AUGUST, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT  [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] :\n<\/p>\n
     1.     Rule.  Rule made returnable forthwith.  Heard by consent.\n<\/p>\n
     2.     By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking writ of
\n     mandamus   directing   the   respondents   to   release   the   land   bearing <\/p>\n
     survey   No.   103   admeasuring  15H   71R,   104   admeasuring  3H   35R
\n     situated   at   Kopargaon,   within   the   Municipal   limits   of   Kopargaon,
\n     Municipal Council, Dist. Ahmednagar from reservation No. 32, 34,
\n     91, 28 and 27 (Hereinafter referred as said “Land”).\n<\/p>\n
     3.     The said “land” is owned by the petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 and <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:57:58 :::<\/span>
\n                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
     one Nikhil Vilas Kulkarni.  The petitioner No. 1 to 4 are the tenants
\n     of the ‘said land’.  There is no dispute in so far as the tenency right of <\/p>\n
     the petitioner No. 1 to 4 is concerned, between the petitioners No. 1
\n     to 4 and the owners of the land.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     The   said   “land”   was   reserved   for   certain   purposes,   vide
\n     reservation   No.     32,   34,   91,   28   and   27   in   the   development   plan <\/p>\n
     which was finalized in the year 1988.\n<\/p>\n
     5.<\/p>\n
            Since no steps for acquisition of ‘said land’ wee taken by the
\n     respondents   herein,   the   petitioner   Nos.   1   to   4   served   a   purchase <\/p>\n
     notice   upon   the   respondent   No.   2   on   11th   December,   2007.
\n     However,   since   no   steps   were   taken   for   acquiring   the   said   “land”
\n     within a period of six months as required under Section 127 of the <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (Hereinafter referred <\/p>\n
     to as the said “Act”),   the petitioners have approached to the Chief
\n     Officer of respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
     6.     Shri   Bhandari,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
\n     petitioners submit that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
\n     the   case   of  Girnar   Traders   v.   State   of   Maharashtra<\/a>  reported   in <\/p>\n
     (2007)   7   Supreme   Court   Cases   555,   it   was   necessary   that   a
\n     declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, as required
\n     under   Section   126(2)   of   the   said   “Act”,   was   required   to   be   made
\n     within a period of six months from the date of service of purchase
\n     notice.   He further submits that on non issuance of declaration as
\n     aforesaid the land stood deemed to be released from the reservation <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:57:58 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
     and   as   such   available   to   the   owners   for   the   purpose   of   the
\n     development of the said land.\n<\/p>\n
     7.      Shri   Patil   Beedkar   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of <\/p>\n
     respondent   No.   2   fairly   concedes   legal   position   laid   down   by   the
\n     Apex Court in the case of Girnar Traders cited supra.  However, he
\n     submits that, since the notice under Section 127 of the said “Act” was <\/p>\n
     not given by the owners of the land, but was given by the petitioner
\n     Nos.   1   to   4,   it   was   not   the   valid   notice   in   law   and   as   such,   the <\/p>\n
     contention of the petitioners that, land stood dereserved was without
\n     substance.\n<\/p>\n
     8.      Shri  Patil   learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  No.  2 submits
\n     that,   the   word   “Any   Person   Interested   in   the   Land”   cannot   be <\/p>\n
     stressed to mean that a tenant in the land is also entitled to issue the <\/p>\n
     notice.\n<\/p>\n
     9.      Shri Bhandari learned counsel for the petitioners in support of
\n     his submission submits that, the term “Any Person Interested in the
\n     Land” has to be interpreted to mean that a tenant is also included in
\n     the said definition who is entitled to serve the notice.  He relies on <\/p>\n
     the   judgment   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of  Jaswantsingh
\n     Mathurasing   v.   Ahmedabad   Municipal   Corporation  reported   in
\n     1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 5, in this regard.  He  submits
\n     that, a similar term under the Land Acquisition Act has also been
\n     considered   by   the   various   High   Courts   and   in   the   said
\n     pronouncement a ‘tenant’ has also been held to be included in the <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:57:58 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
     definition of ‘persons interested’.  Learned counsel for the petitioner
\n     relies on the judgment of Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High <\/p>\n
     Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh and<\/a> another
\n     reported in  A.I.R. 1984 Punjab and Haryana 1, Division Bench of <\/p>\n
     Gujrath High Court in the case of  M\/s. Shashikant Gopaldas and
\n     Co. and another v The Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported
\n     in  AIR Gujrat 278 (V58 C51), Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh <\/p>\n
     High   Court   in   the   case   of  Katari   Satyanarayana   v.   District
\n     Collector,   Krishna   at   Machilipatnam,   reported   in  AIR   1990 <\/p>\n
     Andhra Pradesh 326, Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the
\n     case of Comilla Electric Supply v. East Bengal Bank Ltd., reported <\/p>\n
     in AIR 1939 Calcutta 669.\n<\/p>\n
     10.   Section 127 of the said “Act” reads thus, <\/p>\n
           “127.          If any land reserved, allotted or designated
\n           for any purpose specified in any plan under this Act is
\n           not acquired by agreement within  ten years from the <\/p>\n
           date   on   which   a   final   Regional   plan,   or   final
\n           Development   plan   comes   into   force   or   if   proceedings
\n           for the acquisition of such land under this Act or under
\n           the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894,   are   not   commenced
\n           within such period, the owner or any person interested <\/p>\n
           in the land may serve notice on the Planning Authority,
\n           Development   Authority   or   as   the   case   may   be,
\n           Appropriate Authority to that effect; and if within six
\n           months from the date of the service of such notice, the
\n           land   is   not   acquired   or   no   steps   as   aforesaid   are
\n           commenced   for   its   acquisition,   the   reservation,
\n           allotment   or   designation   shall   be   deemed   to   have
\n           lapsed, and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be
\n           released   from   such   reservation,   allotment   or
\n           designation and shall become available to the owner for <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:57:58 :::<\/span>
\n                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
            the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible
\n            in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan.”\n<\/p>\n
     It   can   thus   be   seen   that,   the   owner   of   the   land   or   any   person
\n     interested in the land is entitled to serve a notice on the Planning <\/p>\n
     Authority.  The question however, which is required to be answered
\n     as to whether, a tenant is included in the term “any person interested
\n     in the land”.\n<\/p>\n
     11.<\/p>\n
            The Apex Court in the case of  Jaswantsingh Mathurasing v.
\n     Ahmedabad   Municipal   Corporation,   cited   supra,   has   considered <\/p>\n
     the provisions of Rule 21 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955.
\n     Under   the   said   Rules,   the   Town   Planning   Officer   was   required   to
\n     serve the notice upon the persons interested in any plot comprised in <\/p>\n
     the scheme.   The Apex Court in the case cited supra, has observed <\/p>\n
     thus   :\n<\/p>\n
                    “8.    The   question   is   whether   the   tenant   or   a
\n                    sub-tenant is a person interested and is entitled
\n                    to notice.   It is obsvious that under Section 105 <\/p>\n
                    of Transfer of Property Act, a lease creates right
\n                    or   an   interest   in   enjoyment   of   the   demised
\n                    property and a tenant or a sub tenant is entitled
\n                    to remain in possession of the demised property
\n                    until the lease is duly   terminated and eviction <\/p>\n
                    takes place in accordance with law.  Therefore, a
\n                    tenant   or   a   sub-tenant   in   possession   of   a
\n                    tenement   in   the   Town   Planning   Scheme   is   a
\n                    person   interested   within   the   meaning   of   Rules
\n                    21(3) and (4) of the Rules.   But he must be in
\n                    possession of the property on the crucial date i. e.
\n                    when  the  Town  Planning   Scheme   is   notified  in
\n                    the official Gazette.  Every owner or tenant or a
\n                    sub-tenant, in possession on that date alone shall <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:57:58 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
                    be entitled to a notice and opportunity”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12.     The term “person interested” has also been interpreted in the
\n     various pronouncements of various High Courts, on which learned
\n     counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioners   has   relied.     The   Division <\/p>\n
     Benches of Gujrat, Andhra Pradesh and Calcutta High Courts have
\n     held that, the tenant in the land which was under acquisition was a
\n     person interested in so far as the provisions of Land Acquisition Act <\/p>\n
     are concerned. In view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of <\/p>\n
     Jaswantsingh Mathurasing v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
\n     cited   supra   and   the   purpose   for   which   the   said   Act   has   been <\/p>\n
     incorporated, we are of the considered view that, tenant would be
\n     included in the term “any Person Interested in the Land”.   In that
\n     view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the contentions <\/p>\n
     raised on behalf of respondent No. 2\/Municipal Council that, tenant <\/p>\n
     would   not   be   included   in   the   term   “any   Person   Interested   in   the
\n     Land”.   In any event, the present petition is filed by the tenants as
\n     well as the land lords.   The petition is filed on 21st October, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     Even as on today we have asked the learned counsel appearing for
\n     the   respondent   No.   2\/Municipal   Council,   as   to   whether   the
\n     Municipal Council was in a position to acquire the land after paying <\/p>\n
     the compensation, Shri Beedkar Patil learned counsel on instructions
\n     from the  Chief Officer of the  Municipal Council  Kopergaon, states
\n     that,   since   there   is   paucity   of   funds,   it   is   not   possible   for   the
\n     Municipal   Council   to   take   immediate   steps   for   acquisition   of   the
\n     land.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:57:58 :::<\/span>
\n                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
     13.    Shri   Beedkar   Patil   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
\n     respondent   No.   2\/Municipal   Council   relies   on   the   judgment   of <\/p>\n
     SCINDIA Employee’s Union Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
\n     reported in  (1996) 10 S.C.C. 150  and submits that, workers were <\/p>\n
     not   included   in   the   definition   of   a   person   interested,   who   were
\n     working in a workshop situated over the acquired land.\n<\/p>\n
     14.    In   so   far   as   reliance   placed   by   Shri   Beedkar   Patil   on   the
\n     judgment of the Apex Court cited supra is concerned, we find that, <\/p>\n
     reliance   is   without   any   substance.     The   question   that   arose   for
\n     consideration   was   as   to   whether   notice   under   Section   5A   to   the <\/p>\n
     workers of a workshop which was situated under the acquired land,
\n     was necessary and as to whether, they were persons interested.  The
\n     Apex Court in the said case found that, under the said provisions <\/p>\n
     limited   scope   for   inquiry   was   as   to   whether   lands   sought   to   be <\/p>\n
     acquired is needed for the public purpose and whether, the land is
\n     suitable for the purpose.  It can further be seen that Sub Section (3) <\/p>\n
     of   Section   5A   makes   it   amply   clear   that   for   the   purpose   of   said
\n     section a person shall be deemed to be person interested, who would
\n     be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the lands were
\n     acquired under the said “Act”.     It was found that, dispute between <\/p>\n
     workers and the employer was beyond the scope of an inquiry under
\n     Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.   In that view of the matter,
\n     we do not find that, the said judgment would be any way near to the
\n     facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
     15.    We find that, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:57:58 :::<\/span>
\n                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
     Jaswantsingh Mathurasing v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
\n     cited supra would apply to the facts of the present case, wherein, it <\/p>\n
     has   been   held   that,   tenants   of   the   property   were   also   “persons
\n     interested” and entitled to be included in the definition of “persons <\/p>\n
     interested” under the Bombay Town Planning Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     15.    Having held that, the tenant is included in the definition of <\/p>\n
     “Any Person Interested in the Land”, who is entitled to serve a notice
\n     to   the   Planning   Authority   and   further   noticing   that,   the   present <\/p>\n
     petition is filed by the tenants as well as owners of the land and that
\n     inspite of valid service of notice under Section 127 of the said “Act”\n<\/p>\n
     no steps are taken for acquisition of the land as contemplated in the
\n     judgment   of   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Girnar   Traders  cited
\n     supra, we have no other option but to allow the petition.\n<\/p>\n
     16.    Rule is therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause “C”.\n<\/p>\n
     [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.]                             [ B. R. GAVAI, J.]\n\n\n\n\n\n     bsb\/August 09\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:57:58 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009 Bench: B.R. Gavai, N.D. Deshpande 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6959 OF 2008 1. Anil Dattatraya Girme, Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Agril., 2. Ashok Dattatraya Girme, Age : […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19048","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009 - 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\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-15T13:20:42+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-15T13:20:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1865,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-15T13:20:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009 - 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\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-15T13:20:42+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-15T13:20:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009"},"wordCount":1865,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009","name":"Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-15T13:20:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-dattatraya-girme-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anil Dattatraya Girme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/19048","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=19048"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19048\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19048"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19048"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19048"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}