{"id":201432,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-09T20:14:29","modified_gmt":"2017-06-09T14:44:29","slug":"babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Babara vs State on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Babara vs State on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Dave,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/1382\/2010\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 1382 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 11502 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA  \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE\n \n \n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nBABARA\nTALUKA SAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH LTD. - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nBM MANGUKIYA for Appellant(s) : 1,MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR UNMESH TRIVEDI AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n4. \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nCAV\nORDER \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe<br \/>\nchallenge in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is the<br \/>\norder dated 01.12.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.11502<br \/>\nof 2009 of the learned Single Judge by which prayer to quash and set<br \/>\naside the order dated 15.07.2006 passed by the revisional authority<br \/>\nin exercise of powers under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue<br \/>\nCode  (for short, &#8220;Code&#8221;) confirming the order dated<br \/>\n31.08.2001 passed by the District collector, Amreli, came to be<br \/>\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tOn<br \/>\n31.08.2001 the District Collector, Amreli ordered that, the land<br \/>\nbearing survey No.717 admeasuring around 1 Acre 00 Gunthas (4047 sq.<br \/>\nmtrs.), which was allotted to Shri Babra Taluka Kharidi Vechan Sangh<br \/>\nLtd., petitioner-appellant (for short, &#8220;the Sangh&#8221;) shall<br \/>\nvest into Government for breach of condition No.9 of the order of<br \/>\ngrant dated 13.06.1984 by which the petitioner was to construct<br \/>\ngodown within a period of 2 years and for about 17 years, no<br \/>\nconstruction of godown was carried out by the petitioner and,<br \/>\ntherefore, Mamlatdar, Babra was directed to take over possession of<br \/>\nthe land and to make necessary entries in the revenue record.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tThe<br \/>\nrevisional authority exercising powers under Section 211 of the<br \/>\nBombay Land Revenue Code, 1879  (for short, &#8220;the Code&#8221;)<br \/>\nalso concurred with the findings of the competent authority and came<br \/>\nto the conclusion that there was no valid ground to interfere and by<br \/>\norder dated 15.07.2006 confirmed the order dated 31.08.2001 of the<br \/>\nDistrict collector, Amreli.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tBefore<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge contentions were raised by the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the land in question was allotted to the petitioner society in<br \/>\nthe year 1984 on payment of full consideration and when Sanad was<br \/>\nalready issued, it was not open for the Collector to take any action.<br \/>\n It was further submitted that the revisional authority exercising<br \/>\npowers under section 211 of the Code could not have revised the terms<br \/>\nand conditions of the agreement.  It is next contended that once<br \/>\nSanad was issued in the matter of contractual obligation by and<br \/>\nbetween the State and the subject, the dispute if any was to be<br \/>\nredressed by approaching civil court. The above contentions were<br \/>\nraised by placing reliance on the decisions of the Bombay High Court<br \/>\nin the cases of; (i) The Government of Bombay v. Mathurdas Laljibhai<br \/>\nGandhi [44 BLR 405] and (ii) Sambhaji Baloji Solankar v. The<br \/>\nMamlatdar of Baramati [55 BLR 281].  Reliance was also placed on the<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/152824058\/\">Patel Raghav Nath v. G.F.Mankodi,<br \/>\nCommissioner, Rajkot<\/a> [1965 GLR 34].\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tHowever,<br \/>\nthe above contentions failed to persuade the learned Single Judge and<br \/>\nconsidering inordinate delay in complying with condition No.9 of the<br \/>\norder of allotment of the land whereby it was stipulated that the<br \/>\npetitioner should construct godown within a period of 2 years and<br \/>\neven after period of 17 years, the land was not used for the purpose<br \/>\nfor which it was allotted; and the authorities below initiated action<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner after issuance of notice and in accordance<br \/>\nwith law, the petition was rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>B.M.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the appellant, virtually<br \/>\nreiterated the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge<br \/>\nwhile challenging the impugned orders.  It is submitted that though<br \/>\nthe order was passed on 13.06.1984, possession of the land in<br \/>\nquestion was given after 6 years and actual boundaries were earmarked<br \/>\nby the District Inspector of Land Records only on 01.05.1990.  It is<br \/>\nfurther submitted that the office bearers of the society could not<br \/>\nconstruct godown due to financial constraint and, therefore, there<br \/>\nwas no willful or deliberate breach of condition laid down in the<br \/>\nsaid order.  However, a bore-well with a room for supply of water was<br \/>\nalready constructed and the appellant is ready and willing to pay the<br \/>\npenalty and, therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below be<br \/>\nquashed and set aside and be further directed to regularize the title<br \/>\nand possession of the land on payment of reasonable premium.  Learned<br \/>\nadvocate for the appellant further submitted that the revisional<br \/>\nauthority exercising powers under Section 211 of the Code could not<br \/>\nhave revised the terms and conditions of the grant order.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Umesh Trivedi, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, would<br \/>\nsubmit that no illegality, even procedural, is committed by the<br \/>\nauthorities below and when there are concurrent findings of<br \/>\nauthorities below about breach of condition of the order of the<br \/>\ngrant, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, this Court in appeal<br \/>\nwould not take a different view other than that was taken by the<br \/>\nauthorities and the learned Single Judge.  It is further submitted<br \/>\nthat the revisional authority exercising powers under Section 211 of<br \/>\nthe Code has not revised any terms and conditions of the agreement<br \/>\nand action was taken in accordance with law after issuing show cause<br \/>\nnotice and within four corners of the order of the grant.  Therefore,<br \/>\nthe decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant<br \/>\nhave no application to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tHaving<br \/>\nheard learned advocates for the parties and upon perusal of the<br \/>\nrecord, admittedly the allotment of the land in question was on<br \/>\ncertain terms and conditions enumerated in the order dated 13.06.1984<br \/>\npassed by the District Collector, Amreli. That condition Nos.9 &amp;<br \/>\n11 read as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;9.\n<\/p>\n<p>That construction and use of the godown is to be completed within 2<br \/>\nyears from the date of the order of the grant; and <\/p>\n<p>11.  The<br \/>\nCollector is empowered to take over the possession of the land with<br \/>\nconstruction without awarding any compensation and the approval is to<br \/>\nbe treated as cancelled&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tIf<br \/>\nthe impugned orders are perused, it is revealed that the appellant<br \/>\nfailed to construct godown as per condition No.9 within 2 years from<br \/>\nthe date of the allotment and even after handing over the possession<br \/>\nof the land in question by Mamlatdar, Babra, District Amreli in the<br \/>\nyear 1990-91, no construction was made. Therefore, a show cause<br \/>\nnotice was issued on 05.07.2001 to the appellant to show cause as to<br \/>\nwhy action should not be taken in accordance with law for breach of<br \/>\ncondition No.9 and having rendered no satisfactory explanation, the<br \/>\ncompetent authority viz. the District Collector passed the order to<br \/>\nforfeit the land.  Even, revisional authority exercising powers under<br \/>\nsection 211 of the Code also found that order of the District<br \/>\nCollector of forfeiting the land was in consonance with terms and<br \/>\nconditions of the order dated 13.06.1984. Condition Nos.9 and 11 of<br \/>\nthe order dated 13.06.1984, which are reproduced herein above, are<br \/>\nspecific and clear and breach thereof empowers the competent<br \/>\nauthority to take over possession of the land with construction even<br \/>\nwithout ordering any compensation. Therefore, the decisions relied by<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the appellant in case of Patel Raghav Natha<br \/>\n(supra) have no application in the facts of this case.  That in the<br \/>\nabove decision, the Court has considered the decisions of the Bombay<br \/>\nHigh Court in cases of  Mathurdas Laljibhai Gandhi (supra) and and<br \/>\nSambhaji Baloji Solankar (supra) and held that, exercise of<br \/>\nrevisional powers was beyond reasonable time.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tWe<br \/>\nfind that this is a gross case where the appellant has not acted as<br \/>\nper the terms of grant of land, completely failed to put the land to<br \/>\nany meaningful use.  After 17 years of grant of land, the same<br \/>\nremained un-utilized.  Entire purpose for grant of land thus<br \/>\nfrustrated. As per the conditions of the allotment order as well as<br \/>\nterms of agreement, it was open for the Collector to recall grant of<br \/>\nland, if any of the conditions was violated. We may recall that the<br \/>\nland was to be developed within two years of taking possession.  It<br \/>\nis not even the case of the appellant that any extension was sought<br \/>\nand granted by the Collector for development of the land. Thus,<br \/>\nwithout any extension of time limit, against requirement of<br \/>\ndevelopment of land within two years, the appellant did not develop<br \/>\nthe same for 17 years.  We see no error in the view of the Collector<br \/>\nas well as the Government. Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tFurther,<br \/>\nin the facts of this case, neither the competent authority nor the<br \/>\nrevisional authority has revised any term or condition of the order<br \/>\nof grant and action taken by both the authorities is within<br \/>\nreasonable time limit.  While passing the order dated 31.08.2001, the<br \/>\nDistrict Collector acted within the frame work of the order of the<br \/>\ngrant and the revisional authority was therefore justified in<br \/>\nconfirming the order of the Collector.  Considering the totality of<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case, we are in full agreement with<br \/>\nthe reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, in absence of any merit, the appeal fails and is hereby<br \/>\ndismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t[S.J.Mukhopadhaya,<br \/>\nC.J.]<\/p>\n<p>[Anant<br \/>\nS. Dave, J.]<\/p>\n<p>*pvv<\/p>\n<p>&gt;    <\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Babara vs State on 29 September, 2010 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Dave,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/1382\/2010 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1382 of 2010 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11502 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Babara vs State on 29 September, 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\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babara vs State on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-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=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-09T14:44:29+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\\\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babara vs State on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-09T14:44:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1461,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Babara vs State on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-09T14:44:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babara vs State on 29 September, 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":"Babara vs State on 29 September, 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\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babara vs State on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-09T14:44:29+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\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babara vs State on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-09T14:44:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":1461,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010","name":"Babara vs State on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-09T14:44:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babara-vs-state-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babara vs State on 29 September, 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\/201432","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=201432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}