{"id":20816,"date":"2010-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-08T13:28:43","modified_gmt":"2018-08-08T07:58:43","slug":"paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/9687\/2010\t 7\/ 9\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9687 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPALIBEN\nSHUKHABHAI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 6 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nM\/S\nTHAKKAR ASSOC. for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR M.R. MENGDEY, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 2 - 5, 7, \nMR\nTATTVAM K PATEL for Respondent(s) :\n6, \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 M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/08\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tBy<br \/>\n\tway of this petition under Article 226 of the  Constitution of<br \/>\n\tIndia, the petitioner &#8211;   seller has prayed for appropriate writ,<br \/>\n\torder and\/or direction to quash and set aside the judgement and<br \/>\n\torder dtd.25\/6\/2006 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal,<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad in Revision<br \/>\n\tApplication No.27 of 2008, by which the Gujarat Revenue<br \/>\n\tTribunal has dismissed the said Revision<br \/>\n\tApplication  preferred by the petitioner confirming the order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the Dy.Collector,<br \/>\n\tChoryasi Prant, Surat dtd.23\/4\/2008 in Tenancy<br \/>\n\tCase No. 27 of 2007 in dropping the proceedings against the<br \/>\n\tprivate respondents herein under sec.84(C) of the Bombay<br \/>\n\tTenancy Act. That the petitioner  was owner of the land in<br \/>\n\tquestion and he sold the said land in favour of the respondent Nos.4<br \/>\n\tto 7 herein by registered sale deed dtd.5\/4\/1990 on payment of full<br \/>\n\tconsideration and Mutation<br \/>\n\tEntry No.316 dtd.1\/1\/1991 came to be recorded in the revenue<br \/>\n\trecord   mutating the name of the purchasers. That after a period of<br \/>\n\tnine years, the Collector, Surat initiated suo-motu proceedings of<br \/>\n\tRevision against the Mutation<br \/>\n\tEntry No.316 by registering RTS Case No.42 of 1995. That vide<br \/>\n\torder dtd.18\/12\/1999, the Collector cancelled the  said Mutation<br \/>\n\tEntry No. 316. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the<br \/>\n\torder passed by the Collector, Surat cancelling the Mutation<br \/>\n\tEntry No. 316, the respondent Nos.4 to 7   purchasers<br \/>\n\tpreferred Revision<br \/>\n\tApplication  before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue<br \/>\n\tDepartment, State of Gujarat, which came to be allowed vide order<br \/>\n\tdtd.18\/12\/1999 and Mutation<br \/>\n\tEntry No.316 came to be restored. That being aggrieved by and<br \/>\n\tdissatisfied with the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals),<br \/>\n\tRevenue Department, State of Gujarat dtd.18\/12\/1999, the State<br \/>\n\tpreferred Special Civil Application No.9303 of 2003, which came to<br \/>\n\tbe dismissed by this Court on the ground that,  proceedings were<br \/>\n\tinitiated by the Collector after unreasonable period. That<br \/>\n\tthereafter, after a period of almost 15 year of the transaction and<br \/>\n\tthe registered sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 7<br \/>\n\tdtd.5\/4\/1990, the Collector vide order communication dtd.29\/1\/2005<br \/>\n\tdirected the Mamlatdar<br \/>\n\tand ALT  to initiated proceedings under sec.70(O) of the<br \/>\n\tBombay Tenancy Act<br \/>\n\tand to examine whether the respondent Nos.4 to 7   purchasers were<br \/>\n\tagriculturists or not. Accordingly, the Mamlatdar<br \/>\n\tand ALT  initiated proceedings under sec.70(O) of the Bombay<br \/>\n\tTenancy Act against the respondent Nos.4 to 7 by issuing<br \/>\n\tnotice dtd.3\/1\/2007. That the Mamlatdar<br \/>\n\tand ALT  by order dtd.31\/8\/2007 passed in Tenancy Case No.84<br \/>\n\tof 2006 recorded a finding that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 were<br \/>\n\tagriculturists  and they have committed breach of the provisions of<br \/>\n\tsec.2(6) read with sec.63 of the Bombay<br \/>\n\tTenancy Act while purchasing the subject land. Consequently, the<br \/>\n\tMamlatdar and ALT  issued direction under sec.84(C)(2) of the Bombay<br \/>\n\tTenancy Act directing to restore the possession of the suit<br \/>\n\tland to its original position within a period of three months. Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar<br \/>\n\tand ALT, the respondent Nos.4 to 7 preferred Tenancy<br \/>\n\tAppeal No. 27 of 2007 and the Dy.Collector vide order<br \/>\n\tdtd.23\/4\/2008 quashed and set aside the order passed by the<br \/>\n\tMamlatdar and ALT<br \/>\n\twhich came to be confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by the<br \/>\n\timpugned judgement and order  in the Revision<br \/>\n\tApplication filed by the petitioner  &#8211; seller. Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved by and dissatisfied with the  order passed by the<br \/>\n\tDy.Collector as<br \/>\n\twell as Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in quashing and setting aside the<br \/>\n\torder passed by the Mamlatdar<br \/>\n\tand ALT  dtd.31\/8\/2007 passed in Tenancy Case No.84 of 2006,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner  &#8211; seller has preferred the present petition under<br \/>\n\tArticle 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Navin<br \/>\n\tPahwa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has<br \/>\n\tvehemently submitted that at the time when the petitioner sold the<br \/>\n\tland in question in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 7, he was made<br \/>\n\tto aware that respondent Nos.4 to 7   purchasers are<br \/>\n\tagriculturists, however, subsequently, it has been found that the<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos.4 to 7 were not agriculturists at the relevant time.<br \/>\n\tIt is further submitted that the Dy.Collector<br \/>\n\tas well as the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal have quashed and set aside<br \/>\n\tthe order passed by the Mamlatdar<br \/>\n\tand ALT  mainly on the ground  that proceedings were<br \/>\n\tinitiated by the Mamlatdar<br \/>\n\tand ALT  belatedly and after unreasonable period. It is<br \/>\n\tfurther submitted that both the authorities below have not actually<br \/>\n\tgone into the merits of the case as to whether at the relevant time<br \/>\n\tthe respondent Nos.4 to 7 were agriculturists or not. It is<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that, as such, the finding given by the Mamlatdar<br \/>\n\tand ALT  that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 were not<br \/>\n\tagriculturists, is not upset either by the Dy.Collector<br \/>\n\tor the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.  It is submitted that sale in<br \/>\n\tfavour of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 is declared invalid and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, the land is required to be disposed of under sec.84(C) of<br \/>\n\tthe Bombay Tenancy Act<br \/>\n\tand the petitioner  as a seller can be re-granted the land in<br \/>\n\tquestion. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner  has locus<br \/>\n\tto prefer the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSubmitting<br \/>\naccordingly, it is requested to admit\/allow the present Special Civil<br \/>\nApplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\n\tthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAt<br \/>\n\tthe outset, it is required to be noted that in fact, the petitioner<br \/>\n\tis the seller who sold the land in question in favour of the<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos.4 to 7 on payment of sale consideration way back in<br \/>\n\tthe year 1990. It is also required to be noted that at the relevant<br \/>\n\ttime the name of the purchasers   respondent Nos.4 to 7 were<br \/>\n\tmutated in the revenue record in the year 1990, which was sought to<br \/>\n\tbe set aside by the Collector and in fact, the Collector set aside<br \/>\n\tthe same, however, the purchasers &#8211; respondent Nos.4 to 7 succeeded<br \/>\n\tbefore the Secretary (Appeals) and the<br \/>\n\t Mutation Entry No.316 dtd.1\/1\/1991 was ordered to be<br \/>\n\trestored  and the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) restoring<br \/>\n\tMutation Entry No.316<br \/>\n\tdtd.1\/1\/1991 in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 came to be<br \/>\n\tconfirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9303 of<br \/>\n\t2003 and the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the  Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of<br \/>\n\tGujarat on the ground that the proceedings were initiated by the<br \/>\n\tCollector after unreasonable period. The said order has attained<br \/>\n\tfinality and has become final and conclusive. Once it is held by<br \/>\n\tthis Court in a proceedings with respect to Mutation<br \/>\n\tEntry  for the land in question that the Mutation<br \/>\n\tEntry could not have been taken into suo-motu revision after<br \/>\n\tunreasonable period, it is not appreciable and understandable as to<br \/>\n\thow and for what reason the  proceedings under sec.70(O) of the<br \/>\n\tBombay Tenancy Act<br \/>\n\twere initiated  and how the  proceedings regarding legality of the<br \/>\n\tsale\/transaction in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 can be<br \/>\n\tinitiated, that too after a period of 15 years. It is also required<br \/>\n\tto be noted that there is specific findings given by both the<br \/>\n\tauthorities below that  apart from the fact that there is<br \/>\n\tunreasonable delay of more than 15 years in initiating the<br \/>\n\tproceedings under sec.70(O) of the Bombay<br \/>\n\tTenancy Act, the respondent Nos.4 to 7 have invested huge<br \/>\n\tamount in developing the land. The aforesaid finding is not<br \/>\n\tchallenged by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, it cannot be<br \/>\n\tsaid that the Collector has committed any error in quashing and<br \/>\n\tsetting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar<br \/>\n\tand ALT  u\/s.70(O) of the Bombay<br \/>\n\tTenancy Act which came to be confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue<br \/>\n\tTribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tEven<br \/>\n\totherwise, considering the decision of the learned Single Judge of<br \/>\n\tthis Court in the case of Smt.Ratnaprabhabai D\/o.Hirojirao<br \/>\n\tNaranrao Mane Vs. M\/s.Tulsidas V. Patel and others, reported in<br \/>\n\t1982(2) GLR 213  as well as the decision of the Division<br \/>\n\tBench of this Court in the case  of Patel Ratilal Maganbhai and<br \/>\n\tothers Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in<br \/>\n\t2003(1) GLR 562, present petition at the instance of the seller<br \/>\n\twho has sold the land by way of registered sale deed way back in the<br \/>\n\tyear 1990 and has pocketed money, is not required to be entertained.<br \/>\n\tNo relief can be granted in the petition at the instance of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner  who is a seller. Considering the aforesaid decision this<br \/>\n\tCourt would not like to exercise the discretion in favour of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner  who is a seller who has sold the land by registered sale<br \/>\n\tdeed long back and who has pocketed money.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tEven<br \/>\n\totherwise, it is required to be noted that, as such, the petitioner<br \/>\n\twas never aggrieved by the sale deed and\/or transaction in favour of<br \/>\n\tthe respondent Nos.4 to 7. No proceedings were initiated by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner earlier.  It was the Collector who exercised the suo-motu<br \/>\n\trevisional powers that too after a period of 15 years. Therefore<br \/>\n\talso, when the petitioner  had never challenged the transaction in<br \/>\n\tfavour of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 earlier, it is not open for the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner now to challenge the same. In the facts and circumstances<br \/>\n\tof the case and considering the findings recorded by the Gujarat<br \/>\n\tRevenue Tribunal, no case is made out to interfere with the orders<br \/>\n\tpassed by the Dy.Collector<br \/>\n\tas well as Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in exercise of powers under<br \/>\n\tArticle 227 of the Constitution of India.  Therefore, the present<br \/>\n\tpetition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n<p>rafik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9687\/2010 7\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9687 of 2010 ========================================================= PALIBEN SHUKHABHAI &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 6 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&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-20816","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-08T07:58:43+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\\\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-08T07:58:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1552,\"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\\\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-08T07:58:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-08T07:58:43+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\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-08T07:58:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010"},"wordCount":1552,"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\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010","name":"Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-08T07:58:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paliben-vs-state-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paliben vs State on 13 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20816","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=20816"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20816\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20816"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}