{"id":219650,"date":"2007-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007"},"modified":"2018-04-18T01:33:19","modified_gmt":"2018-04-17T20:03:19","slug":"ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4468 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nRanip Nagar Palika\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBabuji Gabhaji Thakore and Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/11\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tIn the present appeal challenge is to the order passed by
\na Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the
\nLetters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant. In the Letters
\nPatent Appeal challenge was to the order passed by a learned
\nSingle Judge who had dismissed the writ petition filed by the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tA brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tClaim was made by the respondents to the effect that
\ntheir services were terminated without following the procedure
\nprescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
\n1947 (in short the Act). It was their case that they were
\nemployed on regular basis and, therefore, the termination of
\nservice is illegal. In the claim petition they had averred that
\nthey were working since 1991 and had worked continuously
\ntill there was termination of service by an oral order on
\n16.5.1994. Appellant took the stand that the respondents were
\nengaged as daily rated helpers. Their appointments were not in
\nterms of the recruitment rules and workers were called for
\nrendering services as and when required. It was therefore said
\nthat the claim regarding continuance of service was mis-
\nconceived. The respondents only worked for a few days.  In
\nfact after November, 1993 there was no engagement made as
\ntheir services were not required. The Labour Court,
\nAhmedabad by order dated 9.7.1999 directed re-instatement
\nwith continuity of service and 50% back wages. The order was
\nassailed before the High Court. It was contended that the
\nrespondents were working as daily wagers and they had not
\nrendered regular service. A learned Single judge of the High
\nCourt dismissed the writ petition holding that each of the
\nrespondents had completed 240 days of service and, therefore,
\nthe order of the Labour Court was justified. As noted above,
\nwrit appeal was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that there
\nwas no pleading that the respondents had completed 240 days
\nof service.  In fact their claim in the claim petition was that
\nthey had rendered continuous service without indicating any
\nparticulars. In any event, there was no finding recorded by the
\nLabour Court that they had completed 240 days of service.
\nLearned Single Judge therefore was not justified in holding
\nthat the Labour Court had concluded that the concerned
\nworkmen had completed 240 days of service. It was further
\nsubmitted that all relevant records were produced before the
\nLabour Court which were lightly brushed aside and
\nconclusions were arrived at on conjectures by holding that the
\nclaim of the present respondents was to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIt was further submitted that the onus is on the person
\nwho claims to have rendered more than 240 days of service to
\nestablish it. The Labour Court and the High Court erroneously
\nheld that it was for the employer to establish that the
\nclaimants-workmen had not completed 240 days of service<\/p>\n
6.\tLearned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
\nsubmitted that after analyzing the factual position in detail the
\nLabour Court and the High Court have arrived at the correct
\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn a large number of cases the position of law relating to
\nthe onus to be discharged has been delineated.  In Range
\nForest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani<\/a> (2002 (3) SCC 25), it was held
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIn the instant case, dispute was referred
\nto the Labour Court that the respondent had
\nworked for 240 days and his service had been
\nterminated without paying him any
\nretrenchment compensation. The appellant
\nherein did not accept this and contended that
\nthe respondent had not worked for 240 days.
\nThe Tribunal vide its award dated 10.8.1998
\ncame to the conclusion that the service had
\nbeen terminated without giving retrenchment
\ncompensation. In arriving at the conclusion
\nthat the respondent had worked for 240 days
\nthe Tribunal stated that the burden was on the
\nmanagement to show that there was
\njustification in termination of the service and
\nthat the affidavit of the workman was sufficient
\nto prove that he had worked for 240 days in a
\nyear.\n<\/p>\n
3. For the view we are taking, it is not
\nnecessary to go into the question as to whether
\nthe appellant is an “industry” or not, though
\nreliance is placed on the decision of this Court
\nin State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh
\nParmar<\/a> (2001) 9 SCC 713. In our opinion the
\nTribunal was not right in placing the onus on
\nthe management without first determining on
\nthe basis of cogent evidence that the
\nrespondent had worked for more than 240
\ndays in the year preceding his termination. It
\nwas the case of the claimant that he had so
\nworked but this claim was denied by the
\nappellant. It was then for the claimant to lead
\nevidence to show that he had in fact worked
\nfor 240 days in the year preceding his
\ntermination. Filing of an affidavit is only his
\nown statement in his favour and that cannot
\nbe regarded as sufficient evidence for any court
\nor tribunal to come to the conclusion that a
\nworkman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in
\na year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages
\nfor 240 days or order or record of appointment
\nor engagement for this period was produced by
\nthe workman. On this ground alone, the award
\nis liable to be set aside. However, Mr. Hegde
\nappearing for the Department states that the
\nState is really interested in getting the law
\nsettled and the respondent will be given an
\nemployment on compassionate grounds on the
\nsame terms as he was allegedly engaged prior
\nto his termination, within two months from
\ntoday. <\/p>\n
8.\tThe said decision was followed in Essen Deinki v. Rajiv
\nKumar<\/a> (2002 (8) SCC 400).\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of
\nRajasthan and Anr.<\/a> (2004 (8) SCC 161), the position was again
\nreiterated in paragraph 6 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     It was the case of the workman that he
\nhad worked for more than 240 days in the year
\nconcerned. This claim was denied by the
\nappellant. It was for the claimant to lead
\nevidence to show that he had in fact worked
\nup to 240 days in the year preceding his
\ntermination. He has filed an affidavit. It is only
\nhis own statement which is in his favour and
\nthat cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence
\nfor any Court or Tribunal to come to the
\nconclusion that in fact the claimant had
\nworked for 240 days in a year. These aspects
\nwere highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T.
\nHadimani<\/a> (2002 (3) SCC 25).  No proof of
\nreceipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order
\nor record in that regard was produced. Mere
\nnon-production of the muster roll for a
\nparticular period was not sufficient for the
\nLabour Court to hold that the workman had
\nworked for 240 days as claimed.  <\/p>\n
10.\tIn Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas<\/a> (2004
\n(8) SCC 195), it was held that the burden was on the workman
\nto show that he was working for more than 240 days in the
\npreceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment.  In M.P.
\nElectricity Board v. Hariram<\/a> (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position
\nwas again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
\nThe above burden having not been discharged
\nand the Labour Court having held so, in our
\nopinion, the Industrial Court and the High
\nCourt erred in basing an order of
\nreinstatement solely on an adverse inference
\ndrawn erroneously. At this stage it may be
\nuseful to refer to a judgment of this Court in
\nthe case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad
\nv. Siri Niwas JT<\/a> 2004 (7) SC 248 wherein this
\nCourt disagreed with the High Court’s view of
\ndrawing an adverse inference in regard to the
\nnon-production of certain relevant documents.
\nThis is what this Court had to say in that
\nregard:\n<\/p>\n
“A court of law even in a case where
\nprovisions of the Indian Evidence
\nAct apply, may presume or may not
\npresume that if a party despite
\npossession of the best evidence had
\nnot produced the same, it would
\nhave gone against his contentions.\n<\/p>\n
The matter, however, would be
\ndifferent where despite direction by
\na court the evidence is withheld.\n<\/p>\n
Presumption as to adverse inference
\nfor non-production of evidence is
\nalways optional and one of the
\nfactors which is required to be taken
\ninto consideration is the
\nbackground of facts involved in the
\nlis. The presumption, thus, is not
\nobligatory because notwithstanding
\nthe intentional non-production,
\nother circumstances may exist upon
\nwhich such intentional non-\n<\/p>\n
production may be found to be
\njustifiable on some reasonable
\ngrounds. In the instant case, the
\nIndustrial Tribunal did not draw any
\nadverse inference against the
\nappellant. It was within its
\njurisdiction to do so particularly
\nhaving regard to the nature of the
\nevidence adduced by the
\nrespondent.”\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani
\nand Ors.<\/a> (2005(5) SCC 100) a three-Judge Bench of this Court
\nagain considered the matter and held that the initial burden of
\nproof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240
\ndays of service. Tribunals view that the burden was on the
\nemployer was held to be erroneous. In Batala Cooperative
\nSugar Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh<\/a> (2005 (8) SCC 25) it was
\nheld as follows:\n<\/p>\n
So far as the question of onus regarding
\nworking for more than 240 days is concerned,
\nas observed by this Court in Range Forest
\nOfficer v. S.T. Hadimani<\/a> (2002 (3) SCC 25) the
\nonus is on the workman. <\/p>\n
12.\tThe position was examined in detail in Surendranagar
\nDistrict Panchayat v. Dehyabhai Amarsingh (2005 (7) Supreme\n<\/p>\n
307) and the view expressed in Range Forest Officer, Siri
\nNiwas, M.P. Electricity Board cases (supra) was reiterated.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn R.M. Yellatti v. The Asst. Executive Engineer<\/a> (2006 (1)
\nSCC 106), the decisions referred to above were noted and it
\nwas held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it
\nis clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act
\nin terms do not apply to the proceedings under
\nsection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
\nHowever, applying general principles and on
\nreading the aforestated judgments, we find
\nthat this court has repeatedly taken the view
\nthat the burden of proof is on the claimant to
\nshow that he had worked for 240 days in a
\ngiven year.  This burden is discharged only
\nupon the workman stepping in the witness
\nbox.  This burden is discharged upon the
\nworkman adducing cogent evidence, both oral
\nand documentary.  In cases of termination of
\nservices of daily waged earner, there will be no
\nletter of appointment or termination.  There
\nwill also be no receipt or proof of payment.
\nThus in most cases, the workman (claimant)
\ncan only call upon the employer to produce
\nbefore the court the nominal muster roll for
\nthe given period, the letter of appointment or
\ntermination, if any, the wage register, the
\nattendance register etc.  Drawing of adverse
\ninference ultimately would depend thereafter
\non facts of each case.  The above decisions
\nhowever make it clear that mere affidavits or
\nself-serving statements made by the
\nclaimant\/workman will not suffice in the
\nmatter of discharge of the burden placed by
\nlaw on the workman to prove that he had
\nworked for 240 days in a given year.  The
\nabove judgments further lay down that mere
\nnon-production of muster rolls per se without
\nany plea of suppression by the claimant
\nworkman will not be the ground for the
\ntribunal to draw an adverse inference against
\nthe management. Lastly, the above judgments
\nlay down the basic principle, namely, that the
\nHigh Court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution will not interfere with the
\nconcurrent findings of fact recorded by the
\nlabour court unless they are perverse.  This
\nexercise will depend upon facts of each case.<\/p>\n
14.\tThe above position was again reiterated in ONGC Ltd.
\nand Another v. Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik (2006 (1) SCC\n<\/p>\n
337) and Surendranagar Distt. Panchayat v. Gangaben
\nLaljibhai and Ors.<\/a> (2006 (9) SCC 132).\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIt was held in all these cases that the burden of proof lies
\non the workman to show that he had worked continuously for
\n240 days for the preceding one year and it is for the workman
\nto adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove the
\nfactum of being in employment of the employer.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIt is to be noted that the appellant had produced
\nmaterials to show that the claim of the respondents that they
\nhad worked from 1991 was patently wrong.  In fact, finding
\nhas been recorded that one of the respondents had worked
\nsince January, 1994 contrary to the claim of having worked
\nfrom 1991. In view of the fact that the Labour Court and the
\nHigh Court have not considered the matter in the proper
\nperspective and the view expressed is contrary to the decision
\nin several decisions referred to above, the orders of the Labour
\nCourt and the High Court cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThere was need for factual adjudication on the basis of
\nthe materials adduced by the parties. That apparently has  not
\nbeen done. We therefore set aside the orders of the Labour
\nCourt, learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High
\nCourt and remit the matter to the Labour Court to consider
\nthe matter afresh. It has to specifically record a finding as to
\nwhether the claim of the workmen of continuance of service is
\nacceptable. It has also to be decided as to whether the
\nworkmen had completed 240 days of service. That decision is
\nvital to see whether Section 25-F of the Act has any relevance.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4468 of 2005 PETITIONER: Ranip Nagar Palika RESPONDENT: Babuji Gabhaji Thakore and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/11\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRanip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007 - 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\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-17T20:03:19+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\\\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-17T20:03:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2235,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-17T20:03:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007 - 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\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-17T20:03:19+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\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-17T20:03:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007"},"wordCount":2235,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007","name":"Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-17T20:03:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranip-nagar-palika-vs-babuji-gabhaji-thakore-and-ors-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors on 23 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/219650","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=219650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}