{"id":226771,"date":"2008-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-07-09T20:19:52","modified_gmt":"2018-07-09T14:49:52","slug":"revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/923\/1994\t 5\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 923 of 1994\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 925 of 1994\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nREVABEN\nWD\/O MANIBHAI HARIBHAI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nGM AMIN for\nAppellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1,1.2.2  \nMR APURVA DAVE, AGP for\nDefendant(s) : 1 -\n2. \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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 15\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tBy<br \/>\nway of filing these appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition<br \/>\nAct, 1894 read with section 96 of the Code of Civil  Procedure,<br \/>\n1908,  the  appellants have prayed that the learned Judge ought to<br \/>\nhave awarded Rs.1,000\/- per Are for non-irrigated lands and<br \/>\nRs.1,500\/- per Are for irrigated  lands  by common  judgment  and<br \/>\naward  dated  September  11,  1990 rendered by the learned Assistant<br \/>\nJudge,  Sabarkantha  at Himatnagar  in Land Acquisition Reference<br \/>\nCase Nos.456\/87 to 475\/87 and Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.690<br \/>\nto 694 of 1987.  We  may  state  that  as  the  claimants  had<br \/>\nproposed to lead common evidence, all the reference cases were<br \/>\nconsolidated  with  Land Acquisition Reference Case No.456\/87, which<br \/>\nwas treated as the  main  case  and  the parties had  led  common<br \/>\nevidence  therein.    As common questions of fact and law are<br \/>\ninvolved in these  appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this<br \/>\ncommon judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nExecutive Engineer, Survey and  Construction, Western   Railway,<br \/>\nAhmedabad  had  proposed  to  acquire agricultural lands of village<br \/>\nDhansura, Taluka :  Modasa, District :  Sabarkantha for public<br \/>\npurpose  of  railway.  On  scrutiny  of  the said proposal, State<br \/>\nGovernment was satisfied that agricultural  lands  of  village<br \/>\nDhansura were  likely  to  be  needed for the said public purpose.<br \/>\nTherefore, notification under section 4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition<br \/>\n Act,  1894  (&#8220;the Act&#8221; for short) was issued which was<br \/>\npublished in  Government  Gazette  on  May  17, 1980.   The  owners<br \/>\nwhose  lands  were  proposed  to  be acquired were served with<br \/>\nnotices  and  they  had  filed their objections against the proposed<br \/>\nacquisition.  After considering  their  objections,  Land Acquisition<br \/>\nOfficer had forwarded his  report  to  the  State  Government  as<br \/>\ncontemplated by   section   5A(2)   of   the   Act.    On<br \/>\nconsideration of the said report,  State  Government  was satisfied<br \/>\nthat  agricultural  lands  of village Dhansura specified in the<br \/>\nnotification  published  under  section 4(1)  of  the  Act  were<br \/>\nneeded  for  public  purpose of railway.  Therefore, declaration<br \/>\nunder section 6  of  the Act was made which was published in<br \/>\nGovernment Gazette on November 14, 1980.  The interested  persons<br \/>\nwere thereafter  served  with  notices  for  determination  of<br \/>\ncompensation.   The  claimants appeared before the Land Acquisition<br \/>\nOfficer and claimed compensation at the  rate of Rs.1,000\/-  per<br \/>\nAre.  However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the<br \/>\nLand Acquisition Officer by his award dated March 31, 1982 offered<br \/>\ncompensation to the claimants at the rate of  Rs.    140\/-  per  Are<br \/>\nfor irrigated lands  and Rs.  100\/- per Are for non-irrigated lands.<br \/>\nThe claimants were of the view that the offer of compensation  made<br \/>\nby  the  Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate.  Therefore, they<br \/>\nmade applications in writing requiring the  Land  Acquisition<br \/>\nOfficer  to  refer  the matter  to  the  Court  for determination of<br \/>\nappropriate compensation.  Accordingly, references were made to  the<br \/>\nDistrict  Court, Sabarkantha, which were numbered as Land Acquisition<br \/>\nReference Case Nos.  456 to  475 of 1987 and Land Acquistion<br \/>\nReference Case Nos.690 to 694 of 1987.  In the   reference<br \/>\napplications,  it  was  averred  by  the claimants that the lands<br \/>\nacquired were highly fertile and as the claimants were deriving<br \/>\nsubstantial  income  from the sale of agricultural produces, they<br \/>\nshould be awarded higher compensation.  The  claimants  also pleaded<br \/>\nthat there was an overall development quite near the  acquired lands<br \/>\nand, therefore, they should be awarded compensation at the rate  of<br \/>\nRs.1000\/-  per  Are.   The Executive Engineer,  Western  Railway,<br \/>\nAhmedabad   filed   written statement at Exh.9 and controverted the<br \/>\naverments made in the reference  applications.  In the said reply, it<br \/>\nwas stated that after taking into consideration the situation of the<br \/>\nlands acquired, development which had taken  place in nearby areas,<br \/>\nincome derived from sale of agricultural produces etc., Land<br \/>\nAcquisition Officer had determined compensation and as the<br \/>\ncompensation  determined  by  the Land Acquisition Officer was just<br \/>\nand adequate, reference applications should be dismissed.  On behalf<br \/>\nof the State Government, a purshis at Exh.10 was submitted by which<br \/>\nreply filed by the Executive Engineer,  Western  Railway,  Ahmedabad<br \/>\nwas  adopted.  Upon  rival  assertions of the parties, necessary<br \/>\nissues for determination  were  raised by the  Reference  Court  at<br \/>\nExh.14.  In support of the claim advanced in reference applications,<br \/>\nthe  claimants examined  witnesses  (1) Shakarabhai Makanabhai at<br \/>\nExh.20 and (2) Chimanbhai Bababhai Patel at Exh.48.   On  behalf of<br \/>\nthe acquiring authorities, witness Govindbhai Somabhai Patel was<br \/>\nexamined  at  Exh.57.   The claimants produced sale index at Exh.58.<br \/>\nWitness  Shakarabhai  Makanabhai produced  sale  deed  at Exh.49,<br \/>\nwhich  indicated  that non-agricultural land admeasuring 37 gunthas<br \/>\nwas sold  at the price  of Rs.  1324\/- by deed dated January 24,<br \/>\n1977. On  behalf  of  the  claimants,  previous  award  of  the<br \/>\nReference Court rendered in Land  Reference  Cases No.471\/84  to<br \/>\n494\/84  was  produced  at  Exh.78,   which indicated  that  market<br \/>\nvalue  of  agricultural lands of village Rahiyol was assessed at Rs.<br \/>\n262\/- per Are as  on February  25,  1980  which was the date of<br \/>\npublication of notification under section 4(1)  of  the  Act.<br \/>\nAnother award  rendered  in  Land  Reference  Cases  No.117\/86 to<br \/>\n142\/86 was produced at Exh.74 wherein market value of the lands of<br \/>\nvillage Bayad was determined to be Rs.750\/-  per Are  as  on  January<br \/>\n 24,  1980,  which  was  the date of publication of notification<br \/>\nunder  section  4(1)  of  the Act.  The witness examined on behalf of<br \/>\nthe claimants had also  given  particulars  as  to what was the<br \/>\nquantity of crops of ground-nut, maize, raida, millet etc.  raised on<br \/>\nthe lands  acquired  as  well  as  their  prices at the relevant<br \/>\ntime.  On  appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the Reference<br \/>\nCourt deduced that on the basis of sale indexes, the market  value<br \/>\nof  the  lands  acquired should be  assessed at the rate of Rs.<br \/>\n500\/- per Are for irrigated lands and Rs. 350\/- per Are for<br \/>\nnon-irrigated lands.  The Reference Court also took into<br \/>\nconsideration different crops which were being raised on  the<br \/>\nacquired lands   and   after   taking   into  consideration  their<br \/>\nrespective prices, held that even  on  yield  basis,  the claimants<br \/>\nwere  entitled  to compensation at the rate of Rs.500\/- per Are for<br \/>\nirrigated lands and Rs.350\/-  per Are for non-irrigated lands, by the<br \/>\nimpugned common award dated September 11, 1990, which has given rise<br \/>\nto present appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p> G.M.Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted  that  while<br \/>\ndetermining  market  value of the acquired  lands  with  reference<br \/>\nto  sale  deed  Exh.49, Reference  Court was not justified in making<br \/>\ndeduction to the extent of 33% from the price indicated  by  the<br \/>\nsaid deed on the ground that the extent of land sold by Exh.49 was<br \/>\nsmall  in comparison to the extent of lands acquired in the present<br \/>\ncase and, therefore, the claimants  should be  awarded  higher<br \/>\ncompensation on the basis of the said document; whereas   Mr.Apurva<br \/>\nDave, learned   A.G.P. submitted  that  the  Reference  Court  was<br \/>\njustified in making deductions as indicated in para-10 of the<br \/>\nimpugned award and, therefore, additional compensation as  claimed by<br \/>\nthe appellants should not be awarded to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tWe<br \/>\n have  heard  the  learned  Counsel  for   the parties.   We have<br \/>\nalso taken into consideration the oral as well as documentary<br \/>\nevidence produced by  the  parties on the  record  of the case.  In<br \/>\nSpecial Land Acquisition Officer, Devangere vs. P.Veerabhadar  Appa,<br \/>\nAIR  1984 SC 774, it is ruled that yield method can be resorted to<br \/>\nonly when no other method to ascertain market value of the lands<br \/>\nacquired is available.  In view  of  the  above statement of law made<br \/>\nby the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion  that  the  Reference<br \/>\nCourt was not justified in determining market value of the  lands<br \/>\nacquired  in  the present case  on yield basis.  The claimants had<br \/>\nproduced sale instances to enable the Court  to  determine  market<br \/>\nvalue of  the  acquired  lands.  Under the circumstances, evidence<br \/>\nled by the claimants regarding  profits  derived by  them from sale<br \/>\nof agricultural produces raised on the acquired   lands   will   have<br \/>\n  to   be   ignored   from consideration.  Though  the claimants had<br \/>\nsought to rely on previous awards of the Reference  Court,  the<br \/>\nlearned Judge  was  justified in not placing reliance on them, as<br \/>\nthey were not comparable at  all.    We  agree  with  the reasons<br \/>\ngiven  by  the learned Judge in Paras 11 &amp; 12 of the impugned<br \/>\ncommon award and we hold that those previous awards cannot be taken<br \/>\ninto consideration for determining market value of the lands acquired<br \/>\nin the  present  case, as they  are  not  comparable.    In  view  of<br \/>\n the above conclusions, the only evidence available to the Court  is<br \/>\nin  the  form  of  sale  deed  produced by the claimants.  Witness<br \/>\nShakarabhai Makanabhai  examined  at  Exh.20  has stated  that<br \/>\nChimanbhai  Bababhai Patel who was owner of survey No.473\/A\/1\/1 of<br \/>\nvillage  Dhansura,  had  sold  the same  to  Gayatri  Rural<br \/>\nCo.operative  Society by a deed dated  January  24,  1997  for  a<br \/>\nconsideration  of  Rs.49,001\/-.   Chimanbhai  Bababhai patel whose<br \/>\nevidence was recorded at Exh.48, has produced the said  sale  deed<br \/>\nat Exh.49.   In view of the deposition of owner who had sold the land<br \/>\nto the Society, there is no manner of doubt that sale deed is proved<br \/>\nas required by law and can be taken into consideration for the<br \/>\npurpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired in this<br \/>\ncase.  The Reference  Court deducted 33% from the value of the lands<br \/>\nindicated in Exh.49 on the ground that the land sold  was small in<br \/>\ncomparison to the extent of lands acquired.  In our view, by deed<br \/>\nExh.49, land admeasuring 37 gunthas was sold and, therefore, this<br \/>\ncannot be said  to  be  a  sale instance  relating  to a very small<br \/>\npiece  of  land.  Therefore, in our  view, the  Reference Court was<br \/>\nnot justified in deducting 33% from the value of the lands as<br \/>\nindicated in  Exh.49.  However,  there  is no manner of doubt that by<br \/>\nExh.49, non-agricultural lands were sold and, therefore, appropriate<br \/>\ndeduction  will have to be made  from  the prices  as  indicated  in<br \/>\nExh.49  while determining market  value  of  the  lands acquired.<br \/>\nThe evidence of two  witnesses  examined  on  behalf of the claimants<br \/>\n shows  that  village  Dhansura  is situated at Nadiad- Kapadwanj<br \/>\nHighway and is well developed.  In the village, there are two<br \/>\ngovernment gins,  two  oil  mills, theater, primary  schools,  women<br \/>\ncollege,  Industrial Training  Institute,  7  centres  of  Sabar<br \/>\nDairy etc.  Therefore, the fact that lands acquired have potentiality<br \/>\nfor use as non-agricultural lands, can hardly be doubted.  However,<br \/>\nhaving  regard  to  the  location  of the lands acquired and the fact<br \/>\nthat  non-agricultural  lands  were sold  by  Exh.49,  we are of the<br \/>\nopinion that interest of justice would be served if 40% is deducted<br \/>\nfrom the value of the lands as indicated in Exh.49 for  the  purpose<br \/>\nof determining  market  value  of  the lands acquired in the present<br \/>\ncase.  Making deduction as  mentioned  above,  we hold  that  the<br \/>\nprice of irrigated lands acquired in the present case would come to<br \/>\nRs.7.75  ps. per  sq.mt. which is  rounded  off to Rs.8\/- per sq.mt.<br \/>\nand the market value of  the  non-agricultural  lands  acquired  in<br \/>\nthe present case would be Rs.6\/- per sq.mt.  in view of the formula<br \/>\nlaid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  in Kantaben Manibhai Amin and<br \/>\nanother vs. Special  Land  Acquisition Officer, Baroda, AIR  1990 SC\n<\/p>\n<p>103.  Thus, we hold that the claimants are entitled to compensation<br \/>\nat the rate of Rs.  800\/- per Are for irrigated lands and Rs.  600\/-<br \/>\nper Are for non-irrigated lands.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tFor<br \/>\nthe foregoing reasons, all  the  appeals  are partly allowed.    It<br \/>\nis  held  that  the  claimants are entitled to receive  compensation<br \/>\nat  the  rate  of  Rs.800\/- per  Are  for agricultural lands and<br \/>\nRs.600\/- per Are  for non-agricultural lands.  Rest of the directions<br \/>\ngiven in the impugned award are hereby upheld.  There shall  be no<br \/>\norders as to costs.  Office is directed to draw decree in terms of<br \/>\nthis judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>(K.S.JHAVERI,<br \/>\nJ.) <\/p>\n<p> (ila) <\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/923\/1994 5\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 923 of 1994 With FIRST APPEAL No. 925 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 [&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-226771","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008 - 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\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-09T14:49:52+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-09T14:49:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1926,\"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\\\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-09T14:49:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008 - 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\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-09T14:49:52+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-09T14:49:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008"},"wordCount":1926,"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\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008","name":"Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-09T14:49:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revaben-vs-state-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Revaben vs State on 15 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/226771","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=226771"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226771\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}