{"id":211679,"date":"2011-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011"},"modified":"2015-07-27T01:50:55","modified_gmt":"2015-07-26T20:20:55","slug":"paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/5878\/2011\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 5878 of 2011\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPARADISE\nINDUSTRIES THRO'POA RAMESHBHAI SORATHIYA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THRO'SPECIAL SECRETARY(APPEAL) &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSP MAJMUDAR for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,MRVIMALAPUROHIT for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR PRANAV\nDAVE AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nNone for Respondent(s) : 3 -\n4. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.<br \/>\nPresent petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 14,<br \/>\n19 as well as 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also under<br \/>\nthe provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code challenging the impugned<br \/>\norder passed by the respondent No.1,- Special Secretary (Appeals),<br \/>\nRevenue Department, State of Gujarat, dated 8th April,<br \/>\n2011 in revision application No.MVV\/JMN\/ Kutchh\/ 23 of 2011 and also<br \/>\nchallenging the  stay of the operation of the order dated 11th<br \/>\nMarch, 2011 passed by the District Collector, Kutch on the grounds<br \/>\nset in the memo of petition inter alia, that<br \/>\nthe District Collector has exceeded the jurisdiction and travelled<br \/>\nbeyond the Notice issued under section 79(A) of the Bombay Land<br \/>\nRevenue Code. It is also contended that the respondent No.1 has also<br \/>\nerred in holding that there was a breach of the condition.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Majmudar submitted that the impugned order is passed<br \/>\nbeyond the show cause notice. He referred to the show cause notice<br \/>\nand submitted that the show cause notice has been issued for breach<br \/>\nof condition no.6 which is regarding the construction within the<br \/>\nstipulated period. However, he submitted that the same has also been<br \/>\ncondoned and, therefore, impugned order could not have been passed.<br \/>\nHe submitted that as the impugned order has been passed going beyond<br \/>\nthe show cause notice it amounts to violation of principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice. In support of his submissions he has referred to and<br \/>\nrelied upon the order passed by this Hon&#8217;ble Court in a judgment<br \/>\nreported in 2008 (2) GLH<br \/>\n520 in<br \/>\nthe case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1797320\/\">Hill<br \/>\nMemorial High School and Anr. vs. District Education Officer and Anr.<br \/>\nand<\/a><br \/>\nhas also referred to judgment and order reported in 2009<br \/>\n(0) GLHEL- HC 222728 in<br \/>\nthe case of Taruva<br \/>\nJuth Telibiya Sahakari Mandli vs State of Gujarat. Learned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Majmudar has also submitted that the order of Collector<br \/>\ndated 11th<br \/>\nMarch, 2011 is sought to be implemented by making entry on 12th<br \/>\nMarch, 2011 which suggests about highhandedness. He has submitted<br \/>\nthat in a similar matter in Special Civil Application No.5604 of 2011<br \/>\nthe High Court (Coram: M.R.Shah, J.) vide order dated 29th<br \/>\nApril, 2011 has remanded the matter back and, therefore, in this case<br \/>\nalso the matter be remanded and the impugned order may be quashed and<br \/>\nset aside as the revision application is pending and non-granting of<br \/>\nthe order of status<br \/>\nquo would<br \/>\nmake it infructuous. He further submitted that for grant of interim<br \/>\nrelief in<br \/>\nrespect of any proceedings before the competent authority the same<br \/>\nconsideration has applied as the Civil Court like prima<br \/>\nfacie, balance<br \/>\nof convenience etc. which has not been considered. He has also<br \/>\nsubmitted that proceedings under section 79(A) were initiated earlier<br \/>\nwhen the construction was made which has been regularized. Therefore,<br \/>\nagain the said proceedings could not have been initiated. He has also<br \/>\nreferred to and relied upon the judgment and order of the High Court<br \/>\nreported in 2005<br \/>\n(0) GLHELC- HC 206854 in<br \/>\nthe case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1227877\/\">Legal<br \/>\nHeirs and Rep. Of Decd. Sidibhai Badhabhai vs State of Gujarat and<\/a><br \/>\nin the case of Hill<br \/>\nMemorial High School and Anr. (supra) to<br \/>\nemphasize that the order could not have been passed without affording<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Majmudar has submitted that it was given not only for the<br \/>\nsalt but also storage and process of agricultural items like rice<br \/>\nplant and for other industrial purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tLearned<br \/>\nAssistant Government Pleader Mr.Dave has submitted that the show<br \/>\ncause notice clearly referred to the breach of the conditions which<br \/>\nis at page:42 and pointedly referred to those conditions and<br \/>\nsubmitted that one of the conditions was that land to be used for the<br \/>\npurpose of rice plant and storage, which, in turn, would create the<br \/>\nemployment for the local  people. However, without permission of<br \/>\nGandhidham Development Authority, it has been leased out after making<br \/>\nunauthorized construction of the godown letting out to the Renuka<br \/>\nSugar Limited as well as J.M.Baxi and Company and others. Not only<br \/>\nthat but the land has not been used for the purpose for which it was<br \/>\ngiven and in fact, unauthorized construction has been made, and,<br \/>\ntherefore, impugned order has been passed. Referring to Annexure-E,<br \/>\nwhich is a show cause notice dtd.29.6.2010, he submitted that earlier<br \/>\nalso suo motu<br \/>\nproceedings<br \/>\nfor breach of condition was initiated and time was extended for<br \/>\nmaking use of the land for the purpose of which it has been given and<br \/>\nas there is no compliance with the same, again notice has been issued<br \/>\npointing out the breach or violation. The show cause notice clearly<br \/>\nrefers to these details about the breach of conditions subject to<br \/>\nwhich the land was given which again has a reference to purpose for<br \/>\nwhich it is to be used. It is also made clear that any construction<br \/>\nwas to be made subject to the approval of the Collector or the<br \/>\nGovernment. Admittedly there is no such previous permission obtained.<br \/>\nThough submission has been made by learned counsel Mr. Majmudar that<br \/>\nthe permission for construction of the godown has been obtained from<br \/>\nthe panchayat<br \/>\nwhich itself would reflect the conduct that when the land has been<br \/>\ngiven subject to the conditions as mentioned therein which includes<br \/>\ngetting necessary permission from the Government for making<br \/>\nconstruction and instead of getting such permission it is contended<br \/>\nthat permission has been taken from the panchayat. The land was to be<br \/>\nused for particular purpose and the underlying policy for giving such<br \/>\nland is to encourage the industrial use like making a salt which in<br \/>\nturn will help generating the local employment. It is in this context<br \/>\nwhen the land has not been used for the purpose of salt and the<br \/>\nconstruction has been made without any prior permission or approval<br \/>\nfrom the competent authority for construction of go-down which have<br \/>\nbeen leased out. Further on earlier occasion, inspite of Notice<br \/>\nissued and extension of time was granted to comply with the condition<br \/>\nthe same has not been fulfilled, and, therefore, again the show cause<br \/>\nnotice has been issued pursuant to which the impugned order has been<br \/>\npassed. Therefore the submission made by learned counsel Mr.Majmudar<br \/>\nthat it is in violation of principles of natural justice and the<br \/>\nimpugned order has travelled beyond the show cause notice without any<br \/>\nmerits is unaccepted. In fact the impugned order itself is<br \/>\nself-explanatory not only with regard to violation or breach of<br \/>\ncondition but totally frustrate the very purpose of giving such land<br \/>\nas it was given subject to the conditions with same purpose of<br \/>\nencouraging the particular area by some kind of industrial activity<br \/>\nor for generating the local employment. If that very purpose is<br \/>\nfrustrated, and when the order is passed after issuing show cause<br \/>\nnotice and again the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeal) having<br \/>\nconsidered this aspects has passed the impugned order, it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that it is arbitrary. Moreover there is no question of granting<br \/>\nany status quo as sought to be canvassed inasmuch as if such an order<br \/>\nis passed it would amount to allowing to perpetuate the wrong doing<br \/>\nfor further period pending the proceeding before the authority. The<br \/>\nsubmissions made by learned<br \/>\ncounsel Mr.Majmudar that the same criteria for grant of injunction<br \/>\nwould apply as in the Civil Court is not disputed but there has to be<br \/>\nsome prima facie<br \/>\ncase,<br \/>\nbalance of convenience etc., which are required to be considered like<br \/>\nwhile considering such an application for interim orders in the Civil<br \/>\nCourt.  Therefore impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous which<br \/>\nwould call for any exercise of discretion under Article 226 and 227<br \/>\nof the Constitution of India. The submissions made by learned counsel<br \/>\nMr.Majmudar that the order impugned has travelled beyond the show<br \/>\ncause notice is misconceived. Reliance placed upon judgments of this<br \/>\nCourt referring to the judgment particularly reported in 2008 (2) GLH<br \/>\n520 is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that<br \/>\ncase it was a show cause notice to the institution for rejection of a<br \/>\ngrant and this case is with regard to a breach of the condition<br \/>\nsubject to which under a policy the land is given. Therefore this<br \/>\njudgment will not have any application.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThough<br \/>\nthe submissions have been made by learned advocate Mr.Majmudar to<br \/>\njustify that the land has been given for the process of agricultural<br \/>\nitems or the rice plants and\/or storage for industrial purpose and,<br \/>\ntherefore, there is no breach of condition, the same is without any<br \/>\nmerit. It is required to be mentioned that the land was given for<br \/>\nsalt or for process of agricultural items like rice and establishment<br \/>\nof plant for such purpose and\/or for use and storage of agricultural<br \/>\nproduce by the petitioner himself (emphasis supplied) and not for<br \/>\ngiving such land on lease after making unauthorized construction of<br \/>\ngodown and that too without any permission or authority. Therefore,<br \/>\nadmittedly, when it was given for such purpose for which it has not<br \/>\nbeen utilized and the construction has been made unauthorizedly for<br \/>\nmaking a profit contrary to the underlying purpose or the scheme for<br \/>\ngiving such land to promote the developments or the activities which<br \/>\nwould generate the local employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe<br \/>\njudgment reported in 2005 (0) GLHEL-HC 206854 was again referring to<br \/>\nthe proceedings initiated on the ground that land was not cultivated<br \/>\nfor the whole period and that another person was allowed to<br \/>\ncultivate, and, therefore, the grant of land was cancelled. Again<br \/>\nthis was considered in background  of the facts of the case. Whereas<br \/>\nin the facts of the present case there is admittedly a breach of the<br \/>\ncondition for which show cause notice has been issued and earlier<br \/>\nalso opportunity was given, therefore, the present petition deserves<br \/>\nto be rejected in limine and accordingly stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(RAJESH<br \/>\nH. SHUKLA, J.)<\/p>\n<p>Amit<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/5878\/2011 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5878 of 2011 ========================================================= PARADISE INDUSTRIES THRO&#8217;POA RAMESHBHAI SORATHIYA &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THRO&#8217;SPECIAL SECRETARY(APPEAL) &amp; 3 [&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-211679","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011 - 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\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-26T20:20:55+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-26T20:20:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1647,\"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\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-26T20:20:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011 - 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\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-26T20:20:55+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-26T20:20:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011"},"wordCount":1647,"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\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011","name":"Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-26T20:20:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paradise-vs-state-on-5-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paradise vs State on 5 May, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/211679","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=211679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211679\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}