{"id":198953,"date":"2010-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-02T10:17:39","modified_gmt":"2016-07-02T04:47:39","slug":"dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\n\n\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                  WRIT PETITION NO.3769 OF 2001\n\n                             ...\n<\/pre>\n
     Dnyaneshwar Math Trust                  …Petitioner<\/p>\n
               v\/s.\n<\/p>\n
     1.   State of Maharashtra\n<\/p>\n
     2.   S.L.A.O.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   Hindi Prachar Mandal\n<\/p>\n
     4.   Mr.Sankata Prasad Singh\n<\/p>\n
     5.   Mr.Chandrajit Singh                 …Respondents<\/p>\n
                              …\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.Jai Chinoy i\/b Ashoka Law Firm                      for      the<\/p>\n
     Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.P.M.Pradhan for Respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
                          …\n<\/p>\n
                              CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH &<\/p>\n
                                     A.R.JOSHI,JJ<\/p>\n
                              DATED: 11th March,2010<\/p>\n
     JUDGMENT: (PER D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)<\/p>\n
     1.        The    Petitioner    by        this         petition<\/p>\n
     challenges      the   notification         issued           under<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
     Section     6    of      the     Land     Acquisition                Act<\/p>\n
     compulsorily acquiring its land .\n<\/p>\n
     2.         The    facts        that     are     relevant             and<\/p>\n
     material for deciding this petition are that,<\/p>\n
     the Petitioner is a Public Trust registered<\/p>\n
     under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It<\/p>\n
     carries     on    various        educational,            cultural,<\/p>\n
     social,
\n                      ig charitable          and          educational<\/p>\n
     activities at Dombivli. The Petitioner in the<\/p>\n
     year     1950    by     a     sale-ded        dated        9-4-1930<\/p>\n
     purchased the plot of land admeasuring 260<\/p>\n
     sq.meters at Dombivli (West). The Trust in<\/p>\n
     the     year     1955       permitted        Rashtra           Bhasha<\/p>\n
     Shikshan Mandal (RBSM) to run a school on a<\/p>\n
     portion of the aforesaid plot of land. In the<\/p>\n
     year    1967,    Civil        Suit    No.472     of      1967        was<\/p>\n
     filed     against       the    RBSM     for     a      decree          of<\/p>\n
     possession. The suit was decreed in favour of<\/p>\n
     the     Petitioner       on    5-6-1972        by      the       trial<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
     court. First Appeal filed against that decree<\/p>\n
     was    dismissed       by     the       Appellate          Court         on<\/p>\n
     28-7-1975.      Second       Appeal        preferred           against<\/p>\n
     the   decree     of    possession          was     dismissed             by<\/p>\n
     order dated 14-9-1981 passed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     It    appears    that       the     Respondent           No.3-Hindi<\/p>\n
     Prachar    Mandal       Trust       approached           the       State<\/p>\n
     Government for acquisition of that land under<\/p>\n
     the Land Acquisition Act for the benefits of<\/p>\n
     the    Respondent       No.3.       A    notification              under<\/p>\n
     Section   4     of    the    Land       Acquisition           Act      was<\/p>\n
     issued on 9-5-1984. The Petitioner initiated<\/p>\n
     execution      proceedings          against        the       RBSM        on<\/p>\n
     11-6-1984.       The        present        Respondent              No.4-\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.Sankata       Prasad           Singh         obstructed             the<\/p>\n
     execution        proceedings.              The         Obstruction<\/p>\n
     Proceedings,         however,       were    rejected            by     the<\/p>\n
     Executing Court by order dated 8-7-1987. The<\/p>\n
     Appeal was filed against those orders. That<\/p>\n
     Appeal    was    also        dismissed.          Writ        Petition<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
     filed against those orders was also dismissed<\/p>\n
     by    this     Court.      Then,    the        Respondent            No.3<\/p>\n
     filed Civil Suit No.431 of 1985 claiming an<\/p>\n
     injunction restraining the Petitioner                                from<\/p>\n
     evicting him and for decree of possession.\n<\/p>\n
     Though, initially some interim order was made<\/p>\n
     in    favour    of    the    Respondent          No.3        in      that<\/p>\n
     suit,    but      subsequently            it      was        vacated.\n<\/p>\n
     Against that order Appeal was filed before<\/p>\n
     the Appellate Court. That was rejected. Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition No.4378 of 1987 filed against that<\/p>\n
     order    was      also       rejected.           On        17-6-1991<\/p>\n
     ultimately       possession        of     the      property            was<\/p>\n
     handed   over     to       the    Petitioner.          It      appears<\/p>\n
     that while these proceedings were pending, a<\/p>\n
     notification under Section 6 was issued on<\/p>\n
     7-5-1987 compulsorily acquiring the land for<\/p>\n
     the   benefits        of    the    Respondent          No.3.         Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition     No.3869       of     1987    was     filed         by     the<\/p>\n
     Petitioner       in     this      court     challenging                the<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
     acquisition. During the pendency of that Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition, the Land Acquisition Officer passed<\/p>\n
     an     award    on     17-2-1989.      By        order         dated<\/p>\n
     1-12-1997,      the    Joint    Director         of    Education<\/p>\n
     cancelled       the    recognition          and       permission<\/p>\n
     granted to the Respondent No.3 for running a<\/p>\n
     school. A writ petition being Writ Petition<\/p>\n
     No.3355    of    1997    was    filed       in     this        Court<\/p>\n
     challenging<\/p>\n
                       that       order.     But           that       Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench<\/p>\n
     of this court by judgment dated 22-4-1998.\n<\/p>\n
     The    Petitioner       in    the   meanwhile            made        an<\/p>\n
     application      under       Section    48       of    the       Land<\/p>\n
     Acquisition Act for deleting the land from<\/p>\n
     acquisition.      On    that    application,            an     order<\/p>\n
     was made by the Commissioner dated 20th April,<\/p>\n
     1999 dropping the acquisition proceedings. As<\/p>\n
     the acquisition proceedings were dropped, the<\/p>\n
     Writ    Petitions      challenging      the       notification<\/p>\n
     and the award were withdrawn. By order dated<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
     7-12-2000 passed in Writ Petition No.144 of<\/p>\n
     2000,     the   Division        Bench           of     this          court<\/p>\n
     allowed the petition challenging the order by<\/p>\n
     which     the      acquisition          proceedings                   were<\/p>\n
     dropped on the ground that the order was not<\/p>\n
     published in the official gazette and that<\/p>\n
     the     order   was      made    without             granting           the<\/p>\n
     Respondent      No.3      an    opportunity                of        being<\/p>\n
     heard. The Petitioner, therefore, has filed<\/p>\n
     this      petition       challenging                      compulsory<\/p>\n
     acquisition        of    its     land.          It      is       to       be<\/p>\n
     mentioned       here      that         in        the          official<\/p>\n
     development     plan,      Site    No.58           which         is     the<\/p>\n
     suit land was reserved for primary school and<\/p>\n
     the     appropriate       authority             was        shown          as<\/p>\n
     Respondent      No.3.     By    notification                dated         3rd<\/p>\n
     August,     1998     which      was     published               in      the<\/p>\n
     official    gazette       on    13th   August,            1998,         the<\/p>\n
     Petitioner         has    been         described                as        an<\/p>\n
     appropriate authority in relation to site No.<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
     58, which is reserved for a primary school.\n<\/p>\n
     One more fact that is to be noted is that it<\/p>\n
     appears     that        in   order           to        facilitate<\/p>\n
     acquisition of the property for the benefits<\/p>\n
     of the Respondent No.3, by order dated 20th<\/p>\n
     March,    1984    formal     grant       of       Rs.100\/-           was<\/p>\n
     sanctioned for the building of the school of<\/p>\n
     the Respondent No.3. That order was cancelled<\/p>\n
     by the State Government by order dated 1st<\/p>\n
     December, 1997.\n<\/p>\n
     3.        We     have   heard      the       learned         Counsel<\/p>\n
     appearing for the Petitioner and the learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel    appearing         for     the           Respondents,<\/p>\n
     including Respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
     4.        Perusal of Notification issued under<\/p>\n
     Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated<\/p>\n
     9th May, 1984 shows that there are two reasons<\/p>\n
     given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
     for   proposing      to    acquire       the       land.          First<\/p>\n
     reason     was      Whereas,      it      appears            to      the<\/p>\n
     Special      Land   Acquisition          Officer,            Special<\/p>\n
     Unit, Town Planning and Valuation Department,<\/p>\n
     Thane,     that     the    lands        specified            in      the<\/p>\n
     schedule hreto are likely to be needed for<\/p>\n
     the   Hindi      Prachar   Mandal       Trust,         Dombivali,<\/p>\n
     for construction of a School Building. This<\/p>\n
     was   said<\/p>\n
                   because      in   the     draft        Development<\/p>\n
     Plan,    Site     No.58    i.e.    the       suit        land        was<\/p>\n
     reserved      for    school       and     the        appropriate<\/p>\n
     authority was shown as Respondent No.3. i.e.<\/p>\n
     Hindi     Prachar     Mandal       Trust.         However,             by<\/p>\n
     notification dated 3rd August, 1998, which is<\/p>\n
     published in the official gazette dated 13th<\/p>\n
     August, 1998, the Development Plan has been<\/p>\n
     modified and now the relevant entery reads<\/p>\n
      the appropriate authority in respect of Site<\/p>\n
     No.58 is changed from Hindi Prachar Mandal<\/p>\n
     Trust to that of Dnyaneshwar Math Trust in<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
     Development         Plan .       Thus,         now          in       the<\/p>\n
     Development       Plan     appropriate          authority              in<\/p>\n
     relation to Site No.58 is not the Respondent<\/p>\n
     No.3, but it is the Petitioner, and therefore<\/p>\n
     that   first     reason      given   for        acquiring            the<\/p>\n
     land   compulsorily        for    the     benefits            of     the<\/p>\n
     Respondent No.3 does not any more exist. Now,<\/p>\n
     in relation to Site No.58, the Petitioner who<\/p>\n
     is    the   owner
\n                      ig   of   the    land        itself         is      the<\/p>\n
     appropriate authority. It is further to be<\/p>\n
     seen that in paragraph 38 of the Petition,<\/p>\n
     the Petitioner has stated that by order dated<\/p>\n
     26th May, 1997 recognition to the school of<\/p>\n
     the Respondent No.3 has been cancelled by the<\/p>\n
     Education       Department,       and     that         by        letter<\/p>\n
     dated 19th July, 1997 the Respondent No.3 has<\/p>\n
     been    asked    to   close      down         the    school.           It<\/p>\n
     appears that these orders were challenged by<\/p>\n
     the    Respondent      No.3      before        this      court         by<\/p>\n
     filing Writ Petition No.3355 of 1997. That<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
     Writ    Petition     has       been      decided            by       the<\/p>\n
     Division Bench of this Court by order dated<\/p>\n
     22-4-1998.       Perusal    of    that        judgment           shows<\/p>\n
     that    recognition      was     cancelled           because           of<\/p>\n
     failure of the Respondent No.3 to comply with<\/p>\n
     the conditions of recognition despite several<\/p>\n
     notices and show cause notices given by the<\/p>\n
     authorities.         The         court          found              that<\/p>\n
     deficiencies pointed out by the authorities<\/p>\n
     still exist in the school of the Respondent<\/p>\n
     No.3, and therefore, recognition was rightly<\/p>\n
     cancelled. In paragraph 39 of the petition,<\/p>\n
     reference has been made to the judgment of<\/p>\n
     the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.3355<\/p>\n
     of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
     5.         The second reason which weighed with<\/p>\n
     the    Special    Land     Acquisition         for       acquiring<\/p>\n
     the land compulsorily, as can be seen from<\/p>\n
     the notification under Section 4 referred to<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
     above, is that         Whereas the compensation to<\/p>\n
     be awarded for the said lands are to be paid<\/p>\n
     partly   out    of    public   revenue.         Now,        as     a<\/p>\n
     reason of cancellation of the order dated 28th<\/p>\n
     March,1984 by order dated 1st December, 1997<\/p>\n
     no grant for the purpose of building is being<\/p>\n
     paid by the Government to the Respondent No.<\/p>\n
     3. Therefore, no part of the compensation to<\/p>\n
     be paid for acquiring the land is going to be<\/p>\n
     paid   from    the    public   fund,    and      therefore,<\/p>\n
     really speaking now there will be no public<\/p>\n
     purpose for acquiring the land. It has come<\/p>\n
     on   record    that   the   Petitioner      itself          is     a<\/p>\n
     Public and Charitable Trust. It owns the land<\/p>\n
     adjoining to Site No.58, which is suit site<\/p>\n
     and on that land the Petitioner is presently<\/p>\n
     running a school. In our opinion, therefore,<\/p>\n
     as the Petitioner itself is running a school<\/p>\n
     on the adjoining plot of the land, there can<\/p>\n
     be no justification for acquisition of Site<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
     No.58   for    establishing             another      school          when<\/p>\n
     the    land    is    likely        to    be     needed         by      the<\/p>\n
     Petitioner itself for expansion of its own<\/p>\n
     school.\n<\/p>\n
     6.         In our opinion, looking at the matter<\/p>\n
     from    any        point      of    view,       there           is       no<\/p>\n
     justification            to     uphold        the        compulsory<\/p>\n
     acquisition of the land for the benefits of<\/p>\n
     the Respondent No.3. In our opinion, petition<\/p>\n
     deserves      to    be     allowed.      It     is     accordingly<\/p>\n
     allowed.      Rule       made      absolute       in       terms         of<\/p>\n
     prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                        ( D.K. DESHMUKH,J.)<\/p>\n
                                         ( A.R.JOSHI,J)<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:42:03 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010 Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, A. R. Joshi 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3769 OF 2001 … Dnyaneshwar Math Trust …Petitioner v\/s. 1. State of Maharashtra 2. S.L.A.O. 3. Hindi Prachar Mandal 4. Mr.Sankata […]<\/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-198953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010 - 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\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-02T04:47:39+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\\\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-02T04:47:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1571,\"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\\\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-02T04:47:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 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":"Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010 - 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\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-02T04:47:39+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\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-02T04:47:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010"},"wordCount":1571,"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\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010","name":"Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-02T04:47:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-math-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dnyaneshwar Math Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 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\/198953","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=198953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}