{"id":196283,"date":"2010-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-29T04:11:54","modified_gmt":"2018-03-28T22:41:54","slug":"manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n            HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR       \n\n               WRIT PETITION  No 5875 of 2000\n\n\n    Manoj Rathi &amp; Others\n                         ...Petitioners\n\n\n                       VERSUS\n\n    State   of   Madhya   Pradesh   &amp;   Others\n                                               ...Respondents\n\n\n\n!  Shri Bhaskar Payasi Advocate for the petitioners\n\n\n^  Shri P K Bhaduri Panel Lawyer for the State\/respondent No 1&amp;3 Shri Ajay Singh Advocate on behalf of Shri B P Sharma  Advoc\n\n\n\n CORAM:  Hon'ble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J\n\n Dated: 08\/12\/2010\n\n: Judgement \n\n PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226\/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA           \n\n                      ORDER (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n<p>           (Passed on 08th day of  December, 2010)<\/p>\n<p>  1.   By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the<\/p>\n<p>       notification issued under section 4(1), 6(1) and 17(1) and<\/p>\n<p>       the award dated 08.12.1999 (Annexure P\/10), of the Land<\/p>\n<p>       Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act,<\/p>\n<p>       1894&#8242;).\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by<br \/>\nthe petitioners are that the petitioners are the owner of<br \/>\nthe disputed land situated at village Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil<br \/>\nArang, District Raipur. Admittedly, a notification under<br \/>\nsection 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 19.02.1999 in<br \/>\nthe official gazette. Thereafter, a notification under<br \/>\nsection 17(1) of the Act, 1894 was published in the local<br \/>\nnews papers namely Nav Bharat and Dainik Bhaskar on 7 and<br \/>\n8th May, 1999 respectively. The respondent No. 2, on<br \/>\n25.05.1999 submitted an application for invoking provisions<br \/>\nof section 17(1) of the Act, 1894. The Commissioner, vide<br \/>\norder dated 10.06.1997 granted approval for invoking the<br \/>\nprovisions of section 17(1) of the Act, 1894. The Sub<br \/>\nDivisional Officer, on 1.7.1999 directed for publication of<br \/>\nnotification under section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act, 1894.<br \/>\nAccordingly, notification under section 4(1) and 17(1) of<br \/>\nthe Act, 1894 was published on 7.8.1999 in the gazette.<br \/>\nPrior to that, declaration under section 6 of the Act, 1894<br \/>\nwas published in the gazette on 30.07.1999. Thereafter the<br \/>\nproceedings of the land acquisition was completed and the<br \/>\naward was passed on 08.12.1999 (Annexure P\/10). The<br \/>\nTahsildar, Raipur, was directed by the Sub Divisional<br \/>\nOfficer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer on 14.02.2000 to take<br \/>\nover the possession of the land in dispute which was handed<br \/>\nover to the respondent No. 2 on 17.02.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the<br \/>\nentire land acquisition proceedings were initiated in<br \/>\nviolation of the Act, 1894. The entire proceedings have been<br \/>\ninitiated behind the back of the petitioners and the<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice was not followed. Shri Payasi<br \/>\nfurther submits that according to the notification issued by<br \/>\nthe Government under section 11 of the Act, 1894, the<br \/>\ncompetent authority to pass the award is the Collector. But<br \/>\nin the case on hand, the award has been passed by the Sub<br \/>\nDivisional Officer on 08.12.1999 (Annexure P\/10). Thus, the<br \/>\nsame is not sustainable. Thus, the entire land acquisition<br \/>\nproceedings as well as the impugned award may be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Be that as it may, the law on the issue asto whether a<br \/>\nwrit petition is maintainable after passing of the land<br \/>\nacquisition award, is well settled. The petitioners slept<br \/>\nover their right for a long period, even after passing of<br \/>\nthe award. The award was passed on 08.12.1999 and the<br \/>\npetitioners had filed this petition on 05.10.2000. A<br \/>\nnotification under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was issued<br \/>\non 19.02.1999 and no objection was taken by the petitioners.<br \/>\nA notification under section 6 of the Act, 1894 was<br \/>\npublished in the official gazette on 30.07.1999. The<br \/>\npetitioners did nothing during the acquisition proceedings<br \/>\nand even after passing the award.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   It is well settled principle of law that a writ<br \/>\npetition questioning of the award is not maintainable as<br \/>\nafter taking over the possession of the land the same vests<br \/>\nabsolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.<br \/>\nEven under section 48 of the Act, 1894, the State Authority<br \/>\nalso cannot withdraw from acquisition after possession has<br \/>\nbeen taken over.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   In the matter of <a href=\"\/doc\/1552183\/\">Municipal Corporation of Greater<br \/>\nBombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. &amp;<br \/>\nOthers1, the Supreme Court<\/a> held as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;29.  It  is thus well settled  law<br \/>\n            that when there is inordinate delay<br \/>\n            in  filing  the writ  petition  and<br \/>\n            when   all  steps  taken   in   the<br \/>\n            acquisition proceedings have become<br \/>\n            final, the Court should be loath to<br \/>\n            quash  the notifications. The  High<br \/>\n            Court  has,  no doubt discretionary<br \/>\n            powers  under Article  226  of  the<br \/>\n            Constitution of India to quash  the<br \/>\n            notification under Section 4(1) and<br \/>\n            declaration under Section 6. But it<br \/>\n            should  be  exercised  taking   all<br \/>\n            relevant   factors  into  pragmatic<br \/>\n            consideration. When the  award  was<br \/>\n            passed  and  possession was  taken,<br \/>\n            the Court should not have exercised<br \/>\n            its  power to quash the award which<br \/>\n            is  a  material factor to be  taken<br \/>\n            into      consideration      before<br \/>\n            exercising the power under  Article\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            226.  The fact that no third  party<br \/>\n            rights  were  created is  hardly  a<br \/>\n            ground   for   interference.    The<br \/>\n            Division  Bench of the  High  Court<br \/>\n            was  not right in interfering  with<br \/>\n            the  discretion  exercised  by  the<br \/>\n            learned Single Judge dismissing the<br \/>\n            writ  petition  on  the  ground  of<br \/>\n            laches.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  7.   In  the  matter  of State of Rajasthan  &amp;  Others  v.\n<\/p>\n<p>  D.R.Laxmi &amp; Others2, it was held as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;9&#8230;When the award was passed  and<br \/>\n            possession  was  taken,  the  Court<br \/>\n            should not have exercised its power<br \/>\n            to  quash  the  award  which  is  a<br \/>\n            material  factor to be  taken  into<br \/>\n            consideration before exercising the<br \/>\n            power  under Article 226. The  fact<br \/>\n            that  no  third party  rights  were<br \/>\n            created  in the case, is  hardly  a<br \/>\n            ground for interference.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  8.   In  the  matter  of Municipal Council,  Ahmednagar  &amp;<\/p>\n<p>       another v. Shah Hyder Beig &amp; Others3, it was held as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;17.  In any event, after the award<br \/>\n            is  passed no writ petition can  be<br \/>\n            filed  challenging the  acquisition<br \/>\n            notice  or  against any proceedings<br \/>\n            thereunder.  This  has   been   the<br \/>\n            consistent view taken by this Court<br \/>\n            and  in one of the recent cases <a href=\"\/doc\/1381780\/\">(C.<br \/>\n            Padma v. Dy. Secy.<\/a> to the Govt.  of<br \/>\n            T.N.)..&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  9.   <a href=\"\/doc\/1527139\/\">In  State of Karnataka &amp; Another v. Sangappa  Dayappa<\/p>\n<p>       Biradar &amp; Others4, the Supreme Court<\/a> held as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;12.  A  right  of a landholder  to<br \/>\n            obtain an order of reference  would<br \/>\n            arise only when he has not accepted<br \/>\n            the  award.  Once  such  award   is<br \/>\n            accepted,  no  legal right  in  him<br \/>\n            survives  for claiming a  reference<br \/>\n            to  the  civil court. An  agreement<br \/>\n            between the parties as regards  the<br \/>\n            value of the lands acquired by  the<br \/>\n            State is binding on the parties. So<br \/>\n            long   as   such   agreement    and<br \/>\n            consequently the consent awards are<br \/>\n            not  set  aside  in an  appropriate<br \/>\n            proceeding by a court of law having<br \/>\n            jurisdiction  in relation  thereto,<br \/>\n            the  same remain binding. It is one<br \/>\n            thing  to  say that agreements  are<br \/>\n            void  or voidable in terms  of  the<br \/>\n            provisions  of the Indian  Contract<br \/>\n            Act  having been obtained by fraud,<br \/>\n            collusion,  etc.,  or  are  against<br \/>\n            public  policy  but it  is  another<br \/>\n            thing    to   say   that    without<br \/>\n            questioning  the validity  thereof,<br \/>\n            the    respondents    could    have<br \/>\n            maintained their writ petitions. We<br \/>\n            have noticed hereinbefore that even<br \/>\n            in  the writ petitions, the prayers<br \/>\n            made  by  the respondents were  for<br \/>\n            quashing  the order dated 23-8-1999<br \/>\n            passed   by   the   Special    Land<br \/>\n            Acquisition   Officer    and    for<br \/>\n            issuance of a direction upon him to<br \/>\n            refer   the  matter  to  the  civil<br \/>\n            court.   The   High   Court   while<br \/>\n            exercising  its jurisdiction  under<br \/>\n            Article  226  of the  Constitution,<br \/>\n            thus,  could  not have  substituted<br \/>\n            the   award  passed  by  the   Land<br \/>\n            Acquisition  Officer by  reason  of<br \/>\n            the impugned judgment. Furthermore,<br \/>\n            the   question   as   regards   the<br \/>\n            validity of the agreements had  not<br \/>\n            been  raised before the High Court.<br \/>\n            As   indicated  hereinbefore,   the<br \/>\n            Division  Bench of the  High  Court<br \/>\n            had  also  rejected the  contention<br \/>\n            raised on behalf of the respondents<br \/>\n            herein  to  the  effect  that   the<br \/>\n            agreements did not conform  to  the<br \/>\n            requirements of Article 299 of  the<br \/>\n            Constitution or had not been  drawn<br \/>\n            up in the prescribed pro forma.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  10.  In  Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. &amp; another v. State of<\/p>\n<p>       Rajasthan &amp; Others5, the Supreme Court held that a writ<\/p>\n<p>       petition having been filed after taking over the possession<\/p>\n<p>       and the award having become final, the same deserves to be<\/p>\n<p>       dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  Recently, the Supreme Court, in <a href=\"\/doc\/433120\/\">Sulochana Chandrakant<br \/>\nGalande v. Pune Municipal Transport &amp; Others6,<\/a> it was<br \/>\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;16. Thus, &#8220;free from encumbrances&#8221;<br \/>\n            means  vesting of land in the State<br \/>\n            without any charge or burden in it.<br \/>\n            Thus, the State has absolute title\/<br \/>\n            ownership over it.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            17.  <a href=\"\/doc\/1653863\/\">In  Satendra  Prasad  Jain  v.<br \/>\n            State of U.P.,<\/a> this Court held that<br \/>\n            once  land vests in the State  free<br \/>\n            from all encumbrances, it cannot be<br \/>\n            divested.  The same view  has  been<br \/>\n            reiterated in Awadh Bihari Yadav v.<br \/>\n            State  of Bihar, U.P. Jal Nigam  v.<br \/>\n            <a href=\"\/doc\/209256\/\">Kalra  Properties (P) Ltd., Pratap,<br \/>\n            Chandragauda  Ramgonda   Patil   v.<br \/>\n            State   of  Maharashtra,  Allahabad<br \/>\n            Development      Authority<\/a>       v.<br \/>\n            <a href=\"\/doc\/943108\/\">Nasiruzzaman, State of Kerala v. M.<br \/>\n            Bhaskaran   Pillai,  M.   Ramalinga<br \/>\n            Thevar<\/a>  v. <a href=\"\/doc\/1084188\/\">State of T.N.,  Printers<br \/>\n            (Mysore)   Ltd.  v.  M.A.  Rasheed,<br \/>\n            Bangalore Development Authority<\/a>  v.<br \/>\n            <a href=\"\/doc\/284265\/\">R.  Hanumaiah and Govt. of A.P.  v.<br \/>\n            Syed Akbar.<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            22.  In view of the above, the  law<br \/>\n            can  be  summarised that  once  the<br \/>\n            land  is acquired, it vests in  the<br \/>\n            State  free  from all encumbrances.<br \/>\n            It   is  not  the  concern  of  the<br \/>\n            landowner how his land is used  and<br \/>\n            whether the land is being used  for<br \/>\n            the   purpose  for  which  it   was<br \/>\n            acquired  or for any other purpose.<br \/>\n            He  becomes persona non grata  once<br \/>\n            the land vests in the State. He has<br \/>\n            a  right  to get compensation  only<br \/>\n            for the same. The person interested<br \/>\n            cannot    claim   the   right    of<br \/>\n            restoration of land on any  ground,<br \/>\n            whatsoever.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  12.  No exceptional or extraordinary grounds exist or raised<\/p>\n<p>       to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of<\/p>\n<p>       the Constitution of India, to take a departure from the well<\/p>\n<p>       settled principles of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.  The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                      Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No 5875 of 2000 Manoj Rathi &amp; Others &#8230;Petitioners VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others &#8230;Respondents ! Shri Bhaskar Payasi Advocate for the petitioners ^ Shri P K [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-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>Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 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\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-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=\"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-28T22:41:54+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-28T22:41:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1498,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-28T22:41:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 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\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-28T22:41:54+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-28T22:41:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010"},"wordCount":1498,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010","name":"Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-28T22:41:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-rathi-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-on-8-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoj Rathi &amp; Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others on 8 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196283","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=196283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}