{"id":208560,"date":"2010-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-12T00:27:21","modified_gmt":"2017-12-11T18:57:21","slug":"smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n        HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n         Writ Petition C No 5789 of 2007 AND  Writ Petition C No 5844 of 2007\n\n                     Smt Neru Soni\n\n                      Smt Vandna Soni\n                                ...Petitioners\n\n                       VERSUS\n\n\n                     State   of   Chhattisgarh    &   Another\n                                                    ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n!  Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner\n\n\n\n\n^   Shri N N Roy  Panel Lawyer for the State respondent No 1,    Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pragya Singh, Adv\n\n\n CORAM:   Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J\n\n\n  Dated:04\/10\/2010\n\n:Judgement \n\n\n  PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF          \n                        INDIA\n\n\n                      O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      (Delivered on 04th day of  October, 2010)<\/p>\n
       Heard.\n<\/p>\n
  1.   Since both the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition<\/p>\n
       (C) No. 5789 of 2007 and Writ Petition (C) No. 5844<\/p>\n
       of 2007 involve common facts and question of law,<\/p>\n
       thus, both are being disposed of by this common<\/p>\n
       order.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Challenge in these petitions i.e. Writ Petition
\n(C) No. 5789 of 2007 (for short `the first petition’)
\nand Writ Petition (C) No. 5844 of 2007 (for short
\n`the second petition’) is to the order dated
\n08.06.2007 (Annexure P\/4)  passed by the Estate
\nOfficer, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District
\nDurg, whereby allotment of shop bearing No. F\/16 in
\nthe first petition and No. F\/15 in the second
\npetition, Shitla Commercial Complex, Bhilai, to the
\npetitioners on 27.03.2006, were cancelled, and the
\npetitioners were directed to make an application for
\nrefund of the security deposit and other amount.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as
\nprojected by the petitioners, in both the writ
\npetitions are that pursuant to the notice for auction
\nsale, published in “Dainik Bhaskar”, Raipur Edition,
\non 08.03.2006, for sale of shops in Shitla Commercial
\nComplex, Bhilai, the petitioners participated in the
\nsaid auction sale and the petitioners, being the
\nhighest bidders, were allotted shop No. F\/16 and
\nF\/15, respectively. A security deposit to the tune of
\nRs. 41,825\/- (Annexure P\/2 in both writ petitions)
\nwas deposited and 1\/3rd amount of the final bid to
\nthe tune of Rs. 56,500\/- and Rs. 57,000\/-
\nrespectively were deposited. After completion of the
\nauction and deposit of installments, all of a sudden,
\nthe petitioners received the impugned order dated
\n8.6.2007 (Annexure P\/4) before execution of the
\nagreement, to the effect that that the shops allotted
\nearlier in auction to them had been cancelled.
\nThereafter, respondent-Corporation fixed the date for
\nre-auction of the shop on 23.08.2007. The petitioners
\nfiled a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4982\/2007 and
\n4983\/2007 respectively before this Court, which were
\ndismissed by a common order dated 27.08.2007
\n(Annexure P\/6), on the ground of non-joinder of State
\nof Chhattisgarh, as a necessary party.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The petitioners have preferred the instant
\npetition impleading State of Chhattisgarh as a
\nnecessary party on the ground that no notice was
\ngiven  to the petitioners before canceling the
\nauction sale. However, it was stated that re-auction
\nfixed on 23.08.2007 (Annexure P\/5) for the shops in
\nquestion could not take place on account of the
\ninterim order granted by this Court on 05.10.2007 (in
\nboth the writ petitions).\n<\/p>\n
5.   Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the
\npetitioners would submit that the contract of sale
\nwas complete when the final bid was accepted by the
\nrespondent No. 2. The same could not have been
\ncancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing
\nto the petitioners. In the auction notice, there were
\nno such terms or conditions which requires approval
\nof the State Government, after acceptance of the
\nfinal bid. Even otherwise, the respondent-Corporation
\nwas competent to lease, sale or otherwise convey the
\nimmovable property belonging to the Corporation to
\nany other person without subsequent approval of the
\nState Government.\n<\/p>\n
6.   In the written submission, though the point was
\nnot pleaded , however, during the course of argument,
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner developed a new
\npoint that the State Government has no competence to
\ngrant approval as the land in question belong to the
\nBhilai Steel Plant  (for short `the BSP’) and the
\nsame was transferred to respondent-Corporation, on
\nlease. Thus, the State could not put any restriction
\nprescribed in the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation
\nAct, 1956 (for short `the Act, 1956′). Clause (i) of
\nthe proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80 of the
\nAct, 1956 clearly prescribes is that the property
\nvesting in the Corporation in trust shall be leased,
\nsold or otherwise conveyed in a manner that is likely
\nto prejudicially affect the purpose of the trust
\nsubject to which such property is held. The
\nrequirement of sanction of the Government, more so,
\nprevious sanction is only in case of land which is
\nunder the ownership of the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
7.   On the other hand, Shri Agrawal, learned Senior
\ncounsel appearing with Ms. Pragya Singh, counsel for
\nthe respondent-Corporation would submit that once the
\npetition praying for the same relief has been
\ndismissed on any ground, may be non-joinder of the
\nparty, the same issue cannot be re-agitated in a
\nfresh petition. These petitions are barred by
\nprinciple of `Res-Judicata’ also. The State
\nGovernment is the final authority to grant sanction
\nand in the case, since sanction was not granted by
\nthe State Government, the sale in favour of the
\npetitioners cannot be held as complete.  Under the
\nprovisions of section 80(5)(ii) of the Act, 1956, it
\nis provided that no land shall be sold or otherwise
\nconveyed without the previous sanction of the
\nGovernment and every sale , or other conveyance of
\nproperty vesting in the Corporation shall be deemed
\nto be subject to the conditions and limitations
\nimposed by this Act or by any other enactment for the
\ntime being in force. Secondly, right of the
\npetitioners arose from a contractual agreement, thus,
\nwrit petition is not maintainable to enforce such
\nright which had not accrued till date from the
\ncontractual agreement. Both the respondents deny the
\nstatement of the petitioners that the Corporation was
\nholding the land on lease granted to them by the BSP.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Shri Agrawal places reliance heavily on a
\ndecision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
\nMunicipal Corporation, Satna v. Badri Prasad & Others1
\nand on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court
\nin Vijay Ratan Lal Rathi & Another v. State of
\nChhattisgarh & Others2.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
9.   Learned counsel appearing for the
\nState\/respondent No. 1would submit that vide clause
\n13 of the Terms and Conditions of Allotment of Shops
\nby Auction (Annexure P\/7), all the participants
\nincluding the petitioners were made aware that after
\ncompletion of the auction, the auction would be
\nsubject to sanction\/approval of the State Government.
\nThus, the right in favour of the successful bidders
\nwould come into existence only after the State
\naccords sanction.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Reliance of the Shri Agrawal on Surguja
\nTransport Service v. State Transport Appellate
\nTribunal, M.P. Gwalior & Others3<\/a> which was referred
\nwith approval in Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. &
\nOthers4,<\/a> is misplaced in the facts of the present
\ncases as the Supreme Court, in a case, where the
\npetition was withdrawn without permission of the
\nCourt, and the petitioners  re-instituted a fresh
\npetition, held that second petition is not
\nmaintainable on the basis of public policy as the
\nsame would encourage Bench hunting. But there is no
\nbar on other remedies like a civil suit or a petition
\nunder Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Filing
\nof a second petition can also not be held as barred
\nby principle of res-judicata as the same is
\napplicable, when case\/suit is adjudicated on merit.
\nIn the cases on hand, earlier writ petitions were
\ndismissed for want of non-joinder of party, though
\ncertain observations were made, but the same were
\nonly to find out asto whether or not, the State
\nGovernment was a necessary party. Thus, the objection
\nof the respondent-Corporation on maintainability of
\nthe instant petitions, are rejected.\n<\/p>\n
  11.  There is no dispute that in the auction notice<\/p>\n
       dated 08\/09.03.2006 (Annexure P\/1), there was no<\/p>\n
       prescription with regard to subsequent sanction\/<\/p>\n
       approval of the State Government. Clause 4 of the<\/p>\n
       general terms and conditions of the auction notice<\/p>\n
       provides that the Commissioner of the Corporatoin is<\/p>\n
  the final authority to accept the bid of the parties<\/p>\n
       and it does not prescribe for approval of the State<\/p>\n
       Government for allotment. Clause 4 of the general<\/p>\n
       terms and conditions of the auction notice dated<\/p>\n
       08.02.2006, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “mPpre  cksyhnkrk dh jkf’k dks Lohd`r
\n                ;k  vLohd`r  djus dk vf\/kdkj  vk;qDr]
\n                uxj fuxe fHkykbZ dk gksxkA”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  12.  On  going through the Terms and Conditions  of<\/p>\n
       Allotment of the Shops by Auction (Annexure P\/7), it<\/p>\n
       is clear that clause 13 provides for approval of the<\/p>\n
       State Government for allotment of shops. It is<\/p>\n
       specifically mentioned in clause 13 that the approval<\/p>\n
       of the State Government will be sought and only after<\/p>\n
       approval the highest bidder would acquire the right<\/p>\n
       of patta on the land. The bidder will not have any<\/p>\n
       right over the shop\/building if the allotment is not<\/p>\n
       approved by the Government and the bidder shall be<\/p>\n
       entitled to refund of the amount with interest. No<\/p>\n
       claim thereof shall be entertained. Clause 13 of the<\/p>\n
       Terms and Conditions of Allotment of Shops by Auction<\/p>\n
       (Annexure P\/7) reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “fuxe }kjk cksyh lekIr gksus  ds
\n                ckn  fu;ekuqlkj  jkT;  `kklu  ls
\n                Lohd`fr  izkIr dh tk,xhA Lohd`fr
\n                izkIr  gksus  ds  ckn  ;g   ekuk
\n                tkosxk  dh cksyhnkj ls ml laifRr
\n                ds  iV~Vs  dk vf\/kdkj fu;ekuqlkj
\n                izkIr  gksxkA ;fn jkT; `kklu  ls
\n                Lohd`fr izkIr ugha gksrh  rc  rd
\n                cksyhnkj   dks  lacaf\/kr   Hkwfe
\n                nqdku@Hkou   dk  dksbZ   vf\/kdkj
\n                izkIr  ugha gksxk ,oa fcuk  C;kt
\n                {kfriwfrZ ds ek jkf’k izkIr djus
\n                dk vf\/kdkj gksxk rFkk dksbZ nkok
\n                fuxe }kjk ekU; ugha gksxkA ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  13.  Sub-section 5 of Section 80 of the Act, 1956 is<\/p>\n
       the relevant provision in the case on hand. Clause<\/p>\n
       (i) of the proviso to Section 80(5) does not admit of<\/p>\n
       any  ambiguity. This clearly provides that any<\/p>\n
       property vesting in the Corporation shall be leased,<\/p>\n
       sold or otherwise conveyed in a manner that is likely<\/p>\n
       to prejudicially affect the purpose of the trust<\/p>\n
       subject to which such property is held. Thus, it is<\/p>\n
       clear that if a property in trust is vested in the<\/p>\n
       Corporation, there is no other restriction except the<\/p>\n
       conveyance of the property by lease or sale other<\/p>\n
       otherwise should not be prejudicially affecting the<\/p>\n
       purpose of the trust. Clause (ii) of the proviso to<\/p>\n
       section 80(5) prescribes that no land  of  the<\/p>\n
       Corporation shall be sold or otherwise conveyed<\/p>\n
       without the previous sanction of the Government and<\/p>\n
       further, every sale or other conveyance of property<\/p>\n
       vesting in the Corporation shall be deemed to be<\/p>\n
       subject to the conditions and limitations imposed by<\/p>\n
       this Act or any other enactment for the time being in<\/p>\n
       force.\n<\/p>\n
  14.  Reliance  of Shri Agrawal on a decision  of  a<\/p>\n
       Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Ratan Lal Rathi<\/p>\n
       (supra), is not relevant to the facts of the case as<\/p>\n
       there was no question of cancellation of allotment of<\/p>\n
       shops in auction purchase.\n<\/p>\n
15.  Section 80 of the Act, 1956 is applicable not
\nonly to the property vested in the Corporation but
\nalso to the  property which is under the management
\nof the Corporation. Assuming without holding that the
\nland was held by the respondent-Corporation on lease,
\nbut the same was under the management of the
\nCorporation. Thus, the provisions of section 80 would
\nbe applicable to the facts of the present cases.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The main plank of the argument of learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner is that the land was held
\nby the respondent-Corporation on lease granted by the
\nBSP, fails on a simple ground that neither a transfer
\ndeed indicating transfer of land or any other
\ndocument has been produced, particularly in the teeth
\nof the strong denial of the fact by the respondents.
\nThe BSP is not present to assist the Court in
\nestablishing the averments with regard to nature of
\nthe land, as stated by the petitioners. Thus, any
\nissue on the above stated basis cannot be adjudicated
\nupon for want of sufficient materials. This involves
\ndisputed question of facts and the same cannot be
\ndecided in a writ jurisdiction on the basis of
\naverments made in the pleadings. The competent court
\nis civil court, having the jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
17.  In case of  Badri Prasad (supra), there was no
\nconsideration firstly with regard to general terms
\nand conditions of contract and secondly, whether the
\nterms and conditions of the auction was a part of the
\nauction notice. Thus, the same is not applicable to
\nthe facts of the instant cases.\n<\/p>\n
  18.  On   the  basis  of  aforestated  reasons  and<\/p>\n
       analysis, I am constraint to hold that clause 13 of<\/p>\n
       the Terms and Conditions of Allotment of Shops by<\/p>\n
       Auction (Annexure P\/7), was a part of the contract<\/p>\n
       and thus, the auction sale was not complete as<\/p>\n
       sanction\/approval  was  not  accorded  to  the<\/p>\n
       petitioners. This is not the case of the petitioners<\/p>\n
       that the terms and conditions are inconsistent with<\/p>\n
       the statutory provisions. Thus, no right has accrued<\/p>\n
       in favour of the petitioners before the sanction\/<\/p>\n
       approval was accorded to the auction sale. However,<\/p>\n
       it is not clear from the pleadings of the cases asto<\/p>\n
       whether all the installments have been paid or only<\/p>\n
       one installment has been paid.\n<\/p>\n
  19.  As  a  result,  both  the writ  petitions  are<\/p>\n
       dismissed. The petitioners are entitled to refund of<\/p>\n
       the security amount as well as other amount which has<\/p>\n
       been deposited by them, with interest.\n<\/p>\n
20.  There shall be no order asto costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                JUDGE<\/p>\n
Amit <\/p>\n
       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        <\/p>\n
         Writ Petition (C) No. 5789 of 2007<\/p>\n
PETITIONER       :     Smt. Neru Soni.\n<\/p>\n
                       VERSUS
\nRESPONDENT       :     State   of   Chhattisgarh    &
\n                       Another.<\/p>\n
\n\n                        A N D\n\n         Writ Petition (C) No. 5844 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER       :     Smt. Vandna Soni.\n\n                       VERSUS\nRESPONDENT       :     State   of   Chhattisgarh    &\n                       Another.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Post for pronouncement of order on .. day of October,<\/p>\n
                        2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                            J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition C No 5789 of 2007 AND Writ Petition C No 5844 of 2007 Smt Neru Soni Smt Vandna Soni …Petitioners VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Another …Respondents ! Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 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\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-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=\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-11T18:57:21+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-11T18:57:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2172,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-11T18:57:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 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":"Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 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\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-11T18:57:21+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-11T18:57:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010"},"wordCount":2172,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010","name":"Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-11T18:57:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandna-soni-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-another-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Vandna Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 4 October, 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\/208560","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=208560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}