{"id":207632,"date":"2009-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-10T10:07:05","modified_gmt":"2017-01-10T04:37:05","slug":"executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/1042\/2009\t 11\/ 11\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 1042 of 2009\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 1049 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 3048 of 2009\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 3055 of 2009\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nEXECUTIVE\nENGINEER - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSULEMAN\nAHMED & 2 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nSEJAL K MANDAVIA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1 -\n3. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 20\/03\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned advocate Ms. SK Mandavia on behalf of appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tappellant Executive Engineer, road and building department, District
\n\tPanchayat, Bharuch original opponent no. 2 has challenged award
\n\tpassed by Reference Court in LAR no. 213\/90 to 220\/90 exh 26 decided
\n\ton 31\/3\/2008.  The Reference Court, Bharuch has awarded additional
\n\tamount of compensation in favour of respondent claimants and granted
\n\tmarket value at the rate of Rs. 1072\/- per ARE together with market
\n\tprice rise.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate Ms. Mandavia submitted that Reference Court has committed
\n\tgross error in considering previous award exh 14\/1 because land
\n\tbelonging to Valiya and in present case Siludi are too different not
\n\thaving adjoining to each other and Valiya is taluka place and Siludi
\n\tvillage is far away from taluka headquarter, Valiya and situated on
\n\textreme Western boundary of village.  After leaving village Nandhan,
\n\tDungari and Voida villages are situated there. She submitted that
\n\tReference Court has committed gross error in awarding amount being
\n\tadditional compensation in favour of respondent claimants i.e. Rs.
\n\t1072\/- per ARE.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave considered submission made by learned advocate Ms. Madavia and
\n\tI have also perused award passed by Reference Court. Learned
\n\tadvocate Ms. Mandavia prayed from page 25 where Reference Court has
\n\treferred that instant group of land reference cases, on behalf of
\n\tclaimants, reliance is placed on previous award, passed in group of
\n\tL.A.R. Case no. 1057\/2002 to 1067\/2002, which copy is placed at mark
\n\t14\/1 being previous award.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,
\n\tshe pointed out that both villages are not situated adjoining and
\n\tlands are not similar having potentiality and fertility.  Therefore,
\n\tboth lands are not comparable to each other and assessment made by
\n\tReference Court is wrong and contrary to law which is required to be
\n\tinterference. After considering aforesaid statement made by learned
\n\tadvocate Ms. Mandavia, Shiludi is near to village Valiya, for that,
\n\tthere is no dispute.  The relevant observations made by Reference
\n\tCourt in para 25 to 32 are quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t?S25.\tIn the case
\n\tof second additional Special Land Acquisition Officer and others v\/s
\n\tChunilal Gangaram and others 1999 (2) G.L.R. Page 1357.  It is held
\n\tby the Honourable High Court of Gujarat that<\/p>\n
\t\t?S It is no more
\n\t\tres-integra that the decision of the reference court, given in
\n\t\tearlier case is a relevant and material piece of evidence for the
\n\t\tpurpose of determining compensation to be awarded in other cases.??\n<\/p>\n
\t26.\tThus,
\n\tconsidering the principles laid down in the case of Land Acquisition
\n\tOfficer V\/s A. Krishnamurty, A.I.R. 1984 Orissa, the case of officer
\n\ton special duty (land acquisition) G.I.D.C., Amdavad Vs. Jamkuben
\n\tKalidas Sodha (1992(1) G.L.H., 417 and the case of 2nd
\n\tAddl. Special Land Acquisition Officer & others V\/s Chunilal
\n\tGangaram & others (1999 (2) G.L.R., page 1357.  It is settled
\n\tposition of law that if, in that case, amount of compensation can be
\n\tawarded on the basis of the previous award.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn the instant
\n\t\tgroup of land reference cases, on behalf of the claimants, the
\n\t\treliance is placed on previous award, passed in the group of L.A.R.
\n\t\tCase no. 1057\/02 to 1067\/02, the copy of which, is placed at mark
\n\t\t14\/1.  Mark 14\/1 is the copy of the previous award, in respect of
\n\t\tthe claimants’ land of the revenue boundary of village Valiya.  No
\n\t\tdoubt, considering the geographical map of Taluka Valiya, the
\n\t\trevenue boundary of Valiya, village Siludi is in Valiya Taluka, but
\n\t\tit is on extreme Western boundary of Valiya Taluka.  Though, it is
\n\t\tsettled position of law that in the absence of the sale instances,
\n\t\tthe previous award in respect of the land, under acquisition of the
\n\t\tsame village or adjoining village can be considered.  If, the land,
\n\t\tunder acquisition in the case on hand, and the land of the previous
\n\t\taward are comparable in respect of its geographical condition,
\n\t\tfertility and other aspect, having bearing on valuation of either
\n\t\tagricultural produce or lended property.  Therefore, under normal
\n\t\tcircumstances, if the revenue boundary of Valiya, and the land of
\n\t\tthe previous award, in respect of the claimant’s land of the
\n\t\trevenue boundary of village Valiya would have been proved to be
\n\t\tcomparable with the claimants’ land of present group of land
\n\t\treference cases, the market value of the present claimants’ land
\n\t\twould have been assessed at par with that of the claimants’ land of
\n\t\tthe revenue boundary of village Valiya.  But here it is pertinent
\n\t\tto note that village Valiya is a Taluka Head quarters.  Whereas,
\n\t\tvillage Siludi is far away from Taluka, after leaving village
\n\t\tNardhari, Dungari and Voda.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t27.\tAs stated
\n\t\thereinbefore that village Valiya is the Taluka Head Quarters.
\n\t\tWhereas, village Siludi is a small village, situated at the extreme
\n\t\t Western boundary of Valiya Taluka, far away from the Head
\n\t\tQuarters, and a judicial notice can be taken that Valiya being a
\n\t\tTaluka Head Quarters, having some inherent facility, in respect of
\n\t\tthe marketing and transport etc. Therefore, even, if, productivity
\n\t\twise, the land of the Taluka Head Quarters are at par with that of
\n\t\tagricultural land of an interior village i.e. Siludi in the instant
\n\t\tcase, and the farmers of the interior village Siludi, are getting
\n\t\tsame quantity per acre agricultural produce, as well as
\n\t\tagricultural land is reasonably lower than the market price of the
\n\t\tagricultural produce, and the agricultural land of Taluka Head
\n\t\tQuarters Valiya.  Under the aforesaid circumstances, though,
\n\t\tvillage Siludi is in Valiya Taluka itself but the market price of
\n\t\tthe agricultural land of village Siludi cannot be assessed at par
\n\t\twith that of the agricultural land of Taluka Head Quarters Valiya.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t28.\tNo doubt, in
\n\t\tthe instant group of land reference cases, on behalf of the
\n\t\tclaimants, the reliance has been placed on the previous award, mark
\n\t\t14\/1, passed in the group of land reference case No. 1057\/02 to
\n\t\t1067\/02, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, and Presiding
\n\t\tOfficer, 4th F.T.C., Bharuch. Wherein, the learned Jt.
\n\t\tDistrict Judge, and Presiding Officer, 4th F.T.C.,
\n\t\tBharuch was pleased to assess the market value of the claimants’
\n\t\tland, situated in the revenue boundary of village Valiya, at the
\n\t\trate of Rs. 1820\/- per ARE. But, as under section 23 of the ?Ssaid
\n\t\tAct??, the compensation has to be assessed on the date of
\n\t\tpublication of notification, under section 4 of the said Act.  The
\n\t\tdate of issuance of the notification, under section 4 of the said
\n\t\tAct is material, for assessing the compensation.  In the previous
\n\t\taward, passed by the learned Jt. District Judge, and Presiding
\n\t\tOfficer, 4th F.T.C., Bharuch in L.A.R. Case no. 1057\/02
\n\t\tto 1067\/02 (mark 14\/1).  The notification, under section 4 of the
\n\t\t?Ssaid Act??, was published on 26\/7\/90.  Whereas, the
\n\t\tnotification, under section 4 of the ?Ssaid Act’, for acquiring
\n\t\tthe present claimants’ land has been published in the Govt. gazette
\n\t\ton 6\/10\/1988 i.e. 1-year-9-months & 20 days i.e. about 21.5
\n\t\tmonths earlier than the publication of notification, under section
\n\t\t4 of the ?Ssaid Act?? of the claimants’ land of L.A.R. Case no.
\n\t\t1057\/02 to 1067\/02 (mark 14\/1).  Therefore, in the considered
\n\t\topinion of this Court, if, the market price rise value of the
\n\t\tpresent claimants’ land is assessed at the rate of is considered at
\n\t\tthe 12% p.a. (inconformity with Section 23(1-A) of the ?Ssaid
\n\t\tAct??) less than the assessed the market value of the claimant’s
\n\t\tland of the L.A.R. Case no. 1057\/02 to 1057\/02, the end of the
\n\t\tjustice will be served.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t29.\tAs the market
\n\t\tvalue of the claimants’ land of L.A.R. Case No. 1057\/02 to 1067\/02
\n\t\t(mark 14\/1) has been assessed at Rs. 1820\/- per ARE, on the date of
\n\t\tpublication of the notification, under section 4 of the ?Ssaid
\n\t\tAct?? i.e. on 26\/7\/90 as the notification, under section 4 of the
\n\t\t?Ssaid Act??, for acquiring the present claimants’ land has been
\n\t\tpublished on 6\/10\/88 i.e. about 21.5 months earlier than the
\n\t\tpublication of the notification, under section 4 of the said Act,
\n\t\tfor acquiring the claimants’ land of mark 14\/1, 78.5% of Rs. 1820\/-
\n\t\tcomes to Rs. 1428=70 ps. i.e. Rs. 1429\/- per ARE on the date of
\n\t\tpublication of notification, under section 4 of the ?Ssaid Act.??\n<\/p>\n
\t\t30.\tFurther, as
\n\t\tstated hereinbeofre that village Siludi is far away from Taluka
\n\t\tHead Quarters Valiya, and is situated on the extreme Western
\n\t\tboundary of village Valiya Taluka, after leaving village Nardhari,
\n\t\tDungari and Voda, and it is a small village.  In the considered
\n\t\topinion of this Court, if the market value of the present
\n\t\tclaimants’ land is assessed at 80% of the assessed market value of
\n\t\tthe claimants’ land of mark 14\/1, the end of the justice will be
\n\t\tserved.  As on the basis of the previous award mark 14\/1, in
\n\t\trespect of the claimants’ land of revenue boundary of village
\n\t\tValiya, the market value of the present claimants’ land on the date
\n\t\tof publication of notification, under section 4 of the said Act has
\n\t\tbeen assessed at Rs. 1429\/- per ARE, 80% of Rs. 1429\/- comes to Rs.
\n\t\t1143=20 ps i.e. Rs. 1143\/- per ARE.  Therefore, the market price of
\n\t\tpresent claimants’ land on the date of publication of notification,
\n\t\tunder section 4 of the ?Ssaid Act?? i.e. 6\/10\/88 has been
\n\t\tassessed at Rs. 1143\/- per ARE.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t31.\tAs stated
\n\t\thereinbefore the market value of the present claimants’ land on the
\n\t\tbasis of the previous award mark 14\/1, having been assessed at Rs.
\n\t\t1143\/- per ARE, but the Spl. LAO having awarded only Rs. 71\/- per
\n\t\tARE, certainly, it can be said that the market price assessed by
\n\t\tthe Spl. LAO is unreasonably low.  In the result, I answer issue
\n\t\tno. 1 in the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t32.\tAs the market
\n\t\tprice of the claimants’ land on the date of publication of
\n\t\tnotification, under section 4 of the ?Ssaid act?? has been at Rs.
\n\t\t1143\/- per ARE but the Spl. LAO had awarded only Rs. 71\/- per ARE,
\n\t\tthe claimants are entitle to get additional market value at the
\n\t\trate of Rs. 1072\/- per ARE, hence, I answer issue no. 2
\n\t\taccordingly.??\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of reasoning given by Reference Court and considering
\n\tsubmissions made by learned advocate Ms. Mandavia, the Reference
\n\tCourt has rightly worked out difference and distance between village
\n\tShiludi and Valiya. However, Reference Court has also considered
\n\tprevious award at mark 14\/1 have been assessed at Rs. 1,143\/- per
\n\tARE but special land acquisition officer has awarded only Rs. 71 per
\n\tARE certainly in light of previous award, amount which has been
\n\tfixed by Special Land Acquisition officer is apparently
\n\tunreasonable.  Therefore, Reference Court has considered
\n\tnotification u\/s 4 and after considering previous award exh 14\/1 in
\n\trespect to claimants’ land of revenue boundary of village Valiya,
\n\tmarket value of present claimants’ land from date of publication of
\n\tnotification u\/s 4 of said Act has been assessed Rs. 1429\/- per ARE,
\n\tout of 80% of Rs. 1429\/- comes to Rs. 1143.20 ps per ARE. Therefore,
\n\tmarket price of present claimant’s land on date of publication of
\n\tnotification u\/s 4 of said Act on 6\/10\/1988 has been assessed at Rs.
\n\t1143\/- per ARE.  The difference is between notification in respect
\n\tto previous award and in respect to present case is also considered
\n\tby Reference Court in para 33, which is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t?S33.\tSection
\n\t23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act provides that:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t?SIn addition to
\n\t\tthe market value of the land as above stated, the Court shall in
\n\t\tevery case award an amount, calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on
\n\t\tsuch market value for the period, commencing on and from the date
\n\t\tof the publication of the notification, under section 4(1) of the
\n\t\tLand Acquisition Act in respect of such land to the date of award
\n\t\tof the Collector or the date of taking the possession of the land
\n\t\twhichever is earlier.??\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tIn the instant
\n\t\t\tgroup of land reference cases, as neither party has placed any
\n\t\t\tevidence on record as to when the possession of the land, under
\n\t\t\tacquisition was taken from the claimants, under section 23(1-A) of
\n\t\t\tthe ?Ssaid Act??.  The claimants are entitle to get market price
\n\t\t\trise at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of publication of
\n\t\t\tnotification, under Section 4 of the ?Ssaid Act?? i.e. 6\/10\/88
\n\t\t\ttill the date of award i.e. 21\/9\/89, for a period of 11-months and
\n\t\t\t15-days i.e. for a period of 11.5-moths.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tSection 23(2) of
\n\t\t\tthe Land Acquisition Act provides that :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t?SIn addition to
\n\t\t\tthe market value of the land as above, provided, the Court shall
\n\t\t\tin every case award a sum of 30% of such market value in
\n\t\t\tconsideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition.??\tTherefore,
\n\t\t\tthe claimants are entitle to get an additional 30% amount of
\n\t\t\tcompensation by way of solatium, as provided, under Section 23(2)
\n\t\t\tof the ?Ssaid Act.??\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tReference Court has considered that Section 4 notification is dated
\n\t6\/10\/1988 and section 4 notification in respect to previous award is
\n\t21\/9\/1989, only eleven months fifteen days difference are there i.e.
\n\thow Reference Court has calculated amount of Rs. 1072\/- market price
\n\trise has been fixed per ARE in respect to LAR no. 213\/1990 to
\n\t220\/1990.\n<\/p>\n
According
\n\tto my opinion, reasoning which has been given by Reference Court can
\n\tnot consider to be arbitrary or baseless and perverse.  On the
\n\tcontrary Reference Court has rightly analyzed market price of land
\n\tin question and rightly considered previous award passed by
\n\tReference Court, Bharuch, for that, according to my opinion,
\n\tReference Court has not committed any error which would require
\n\tinterference by this Court. Therefore, contention raised by learned
\n\tadvocate Ms. Mandavia can not be accepted hence, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Hence,
\n\tthere is no substance in present appeal.  Accordingly, present
\n\tappeal is dismissed.  No order on civil applications.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,
\nJ)<\/p>\n
asma<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/1042\/2009 11\/ 11 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1042 of 2009 To FIRST APPEAL No. 1049 of 2009 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3048 of 2009 To CIVIL APPLICATION No. […]<\/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-207632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nExecutive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-10T04:37:05+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T04:37:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2245,\"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\\\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T04:37:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-10T04:37:05+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T04:37:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009"},"wordCount":2245,"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\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009","name":"Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T04:37:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-suleman-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Executive vs Suleman on 20 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207632","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=207632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}