{"id":227449,"date":"2008-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-12T00:53:54","modified_gmt":"2017-03-11T19:23:54","slug":"ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: P. R. Borkar<\/div>\n
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n                  FIRST APPEAL NO.287 OF 1990\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n     Ranba s\/o. Sattaji,                          ]..Appellants\n     aged 75 years, Occ. Agri.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n     R\/o. Wasarni, Tal. & Dist. Nanded.\n     (Deceased)\n\n     1. Ahilyabai w\/o. Prabhakar Kandharkar\n        Age. 42 years, Occ. Household,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n        R\/o. Manaspuri, PO Bahadarpura,\n        Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.\n        (Daughter of deceased Ranba)\n\n     2. Girjabai w\/o. Mariba Chitte\n        Age. 50 years, Occ. Household,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        R\/o. As above.\n        (Daughter of deceased Ranba)\n                  \n     3. Sou. Sarjabai w\/o. Shankar Sonsare\n        Age. 49 years, Occ. Household,\n        R\/o. Vasrani, Tq. Kandhar,\n                 \n        Dist. Nanded.\n        (Legal heir and daughter of deceased\n         Ranba s\/o. Sattaji)\n\n     4. Shri Baba @ Munjaji s\/o. Ranbaji\n        Gajbhare\n      \n\n\n        Age. 50 years, Occ. Agri.\n        R\/o. Vasraji, Tq. & Dist. Nanded\n   \n\n\n\n        (Legal heir and son of deceased\n         Ranba s\/o. Sattaji).\n\n\n                            VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n\n     1. The State of Maharashtra                  ]..Respondents\n\n     2. Pandu s\/o. Narba,\n        Aged Major, Occ. Nil,\n        R\/o. Wasarni, Tal. & Dist. Nanded\n\n\n\n\n\n     Shri N.N. Shinde, Advocate for the appellants.\n     Mrs. S.S. Autade, A.G.P. for respondent No.1\/State.\n     Shri B.N. Patil h\/f. Shri S.K. Kadam, Advocate for\n     respondent No.2.\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:51:59 :::\n                                          (    2    )\n\n\n\n\n                                                 CORAM          :   P.R. BORKAR,J.\n                                           RESERVED ON          :   10.09.2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n                                         PRONOUNCED ON          :   16.09.2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
     .          This        is an appeal preferred by the person who<\/p>\n
     is     dissatisfied          with the order of           apportionment             of<\/p>\n
     compensation           passed    under       Section 30         of     the      Land<\/p>\n
     Acquisition          Act     by the learned Civil              Judge,       Senior<\/p>\n
     Division, Nanded in L.A.R.               No.       45 of 1987 decided on<\/p>\n
     31.07.1989.\n<\/p>\n
     2.         In        short     it is case of appellant Ranba                    that<\/p>\n
     land     Survey No.51\/1 situated at village Vasarni, Tal.\n<\/p>\n
     &     Dist.     Nanded to the extent of 2 Hectares 54 R                          was<\/p>\n
     acquired        by     the     Government and        notification             under<\/p>\n
     Section       4 of the Land Acquisition Act was                      published.\n<\/p>\n
     The     final        award was passed on           19.03.1987.            Notices<\/p>\n
     were     issued        under     Section      12     (2)       of    the        Land<\/p>\n
     Acquisition          Act to concerned land owners and original<\/p>\n
     appellant        Ranba and respondent No.2 Pandu both                         filed<\/p>\n
     their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer.\n<\/p>\n
     3.         It is further case of original appellant Ranba<\/p>\n
     that the land Survey No.                51\/1 was originally owned by<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:51:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (   3   )<\/p>\n
     Vamanrao           Ghansham       Naik.     Ranba was declared              as     the<\/p>\n
     protected tenant and purchaser under the provisions of<\/p>\n
     the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950<\/p>\n
     (hereinafter referred to as “H.T.                      & A.L.        Act”).        The<\/p>\n
     certificate under Section 38-E was issued in favour of<\/p>\n
     appellant           Ranba and as such appellant Ranba alone                          is<\/p>\n
     entitled           to     the     entire compensation amount                of     the<\/p>\n
     acquired land.\n<\/p>\n
     4.           On         the    other hand it is case            of     respondent<\/p>\n
     No.2<\/p>\n
     original
\n              Pandu<\/p>\n
                        tenants<\/p>\n
                              that     his    father Narba<\/p>\n
                                      of the land.       Each had
\n                                                                 and      Ranba<\/p>\n
                                                                          1\/2<\/span>
\n                                                                                       were<\/p>\n
                                                                                     share.\n<\/p>\n
     After death of Narba, as his son respondent No.2 Pandu<\/p>\n
     is     entitled           to 1\/2 share.         In the written           statement<\/p>\n
     which        was        filed     before    the     learned       Civil         Judge,<\/p>\n
     respondent              No.2 Pandu has stated that though the land<\/p>\n
     was     declared              under Section 38-E of the H.T.                &     A.L.\n<\/p>\n
     Act     in     the name of Ranba – the uncle                    of     respondent<\/p>\n
     No.2,        1\/2        share     thereof was under         cultivation            and<\/p>\n
     possession              of respondent No.2 Pandu and remaining 1\/2<\/p>\n
     share        was        in possession of appellant              Ranba.           Total<\/p>\n
     occupancy           price was deposited by both jointly in                         the<\/p>\n
     office of Tahsildar, Nanded, but ownership certificate<\/p>\n
     was     issued           in the name of Ranba – paternal uncle                       of<\/p>\n
     respondent              No.2    Pandu.      At that time          Ranba         orally<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:51:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (     4   )<\/p>\n
     agreed to effect mutation of 1\/2 share of the declared<\/p>\n
     portion in the name of Pandu.                    He also executed a bond<\/p>\n
     as     “Watnipatra”           (partition     deed) on         30.03.1981           in<\/p>\n
     favour of Pandu on stamp paper in presence of panchas.\n<\/p>\n
     Half     of       the land continued to be in               possession           and<\/p>\n
     cultivation           of    respondent       No.2    until        acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
     Under        the circumstances he is entitled to half amount<\/p>\n
     of the compensation.\n<\/p>\n
     5.           It      is    argued vehemently by Adv.                 Shri       N.N.<\/p>\n
\n\n     Shinde\n\n     the     H.T.&\n                              \n<\/pre>\n
                   for the appellant that under the provisions of<\/p>\n
                          A.L.Act,     enquiries are          made.         Names       of<\/p>\n
     protected           tenants     were     declared.        Objections            were<\/p>\n
     called        and        thereafter proceedings under              Section         38<\/p>\n
     were     initiated.            Respondent No.2 Pandu never                  raised<\/p>\n
     objection to the sale of land in the name of appellant<\/p>\n
     Ranba and as such he cannot have any more dispute over<\/p>\n
     the exclusive ownership of appellant Ranba.                            Reference<\/p>\n
     was     made        to     sub-section 6(a) of Section 38                 of     the<\/p>\n
     H.T.& A.L.           Act and it is argued that sale certificate<\/p>\n
     issued        to a tenant declaring him to be the                      purchaser<\/p>\n
     of     the     land        is conclusive evidence of the                 sale      as<\/p>\n
     against           land-holder      and       all    persons          interested<\/p>\n
     therein.            The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hold<\/p>\n
     that respondent No.2 is entitled to half share.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:51:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            (   5     )\n\n\n\n\n     6.           The      learned        advocate       for    respondent            No.2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n     heavily           relied   upon the entries in V.F.                   No.        7\/12\n\n     extracts           produced     at Exh.27 and 28.            He also         argued\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     that        the     case     sought to be made out now                was       never\n\n     advanced           before the learned Civil Judge.                  In-fact, no\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n<\/pre>\n
     application or written submission was filed before the<\/p>\n
     learned           Civil Judge.        There was no contest before the<\/p>\n
     learned           Civil Judge by appellant Ranba by filing                        any<\/p>\n
     pleading or application.                  He referred to para 6 of the<\/p>\n
                not<\/p>\n
     judgment in which it is specifically stated that Ranba<\/p>\n
     has                filed say after receipt of reference in                        the<\/p>\n
     Court.            However,      he     had      filed     say      before        Land<\/p>\n
     Acquisition           Officer        on 25.06.1987 and said               say     was<\/p>\n
     taken        into consideration.              It was also argued that no<\/p>\n
     evidence           whatsoever was filed by Ranba in rebuttal of<\/p>\n
     the        documentary evidence produced by respondent                           No.2<\/p>\n
     Pandu.\n<\/p>\n
     7.           It      is    no more disputed that appellant                      Ranba<\/p>\n
     was uncle of respondent No.2 Pandu as observed in para<\/p>\n
     8     of     judgment of the Trial Court.                 One      Sattaji        had<\/p>\n
     five        sons,     namely, Nivratti, Tukaram, Ranba,                      Narba,<\/p>\n
     Sakharam and Tukaram.                 Respondent No.2 Pandu is son of<\/p>\n
     Narba.            The V.F.    No.      7\/12 extracts at Exh.27 and 28<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (   6   )<\/p>\n
     which       are     from     1960-61 to 1984-85        show      that       from<\/p>\n
     1960-61       both        appellant Ranba and Narba –            father        of<\/p>\n
     respondent         No.2     were shown to be joint tenants                  till<\/p>\n
     the year 1970-71.            In 1971-72 for the first time Ranba<\/p>\n
     was shown to have been cultivating 1\/2 portion of land<\/p>\n
     as     a    tenant        and Narba was shown to        be     cultivating<\/p>\n
     remaining          half of the land.       The entries of the               year<\/p>\n
     1972-73 to 1974-75 show both appellant Ranba and Narba<\/p>\n
     father       of     respondent No.2 as each          cultivating            half<\/p>\n
     portion       of the land as tenants.           Mode of        cultivation<\/p>\n
     was<\/p>\n
     was
\n             shown as “3”.\n<\/p>\n
                           ig       In the year 1975-76 name of<\/p>\n
             substituted in place of name of Narba and he
\n                                                                                Pandu<\/p>\n
                                                                                  was<\/p>\n
     shown       to be in possession of half share as tenant and<\/p>\n
     said       entry     is continued till year 1984-85.                 For     the<\/p>\n
     first time in 1985-86 name of CIDCO was entered (which<\/p>\n
     is     acquiring body), as the owner and possessor.                          So,<\/p>\n
     continuous         entries     for 24-25 years which were                 never<\/p>\n
     challenged         supported       case of respondent          No.2       Pandu<\/p>\n
     that respondent No.2 Pandu and his father were tenants<\/p>\n
     of half portion of the land.               Earlier, there was joint<\/p>\n
     cultivation          by    Ranba    and Narba    and      thereafter           he<\/p>\n
     started cultivating half portion of the land.\n<\/p>\n
     8.          It     is      true that sale certificate            cannot        be<\/p>\n
     challenged and it is conclusive proof of the statutory<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (   7    )<\/p>\n
     sale     under the provisions of H.T.& A.L.Act.                          However,<\/p>\n
     the provisions of H.T.& A.L.Act do not prevent a joint<\/p>\n
     family        from        being tenant of a land.             Similarly,           it<\/p>\n
     does     not prevent one or more persons jointly taking a<\/p>\n
     land     on     lease and thus becoming joint tenants.                           The<\/p>\n
     averments            in     the   written        submission          filed         by<\/p>\n
     respondent           No.2     Pandu at Exh.19 in the              Trial       Court<\/p>\n
     regarding        the        occupancy    price being          paid       by     both<\/p>\n
     appellant        Ranba and respondent No.2 – Pandu and about<\/p>\n
     promise        by Ranba to Pandu to mutate half of the                          land<\/p>\n
     in     his<\/p>\n
     partition
\n                    name<\/p>\n
                      deed
\n                            ig  and about    subsequently<\/p>\n
                                  on 30.03.1981 were not
\n                                                                   executing<\/p>\n
                                                                     controverted.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                      the<\/p>\n
     There        is no denial of said averments either by way of<\/p>\n
     reply        or by way of oral evidence.               So, said pleadings<\/p>\n
     remained        uncontroverted          and as such admitted in                  the<\/p>\n
     facts of the present case.                  In absence of any reply or<\/p>\n
     evidence        in rebuttal of averments in para 3 of Exh.19<\/p>\n
     filed        by respondent No.2, it cannot be said that                          the<\/p>\n
     Trial        Court        has committed any error in holding                    that<\/p>\n
     the     appellant and respondent No.2 were each                          entitled<\/p>\n
     to     half share in the compensation awarded.                         Under the<\/p>\n
     circumstances of this case it can be inferred that the<\/p>\n
     sale certificate issued in the name of appellant Ranba<\/p>\n
     was     obtained for himself and his nephew Pandu as both<\/p>\n
     were joint tenants of the land.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:00 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     (    8    )\n\n\n\n\n     9.         In    this   view   of       the   matter,         this      appeal\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n     deserves        to be dismissed.        Hence, the first appeal is\n\n     dismissed.       Parties to bear their own costs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n                                                   [P.R. BORKAR, J.]\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n     snk\/2008\/SEP08\/fa287.90\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                        \n                       \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:52:00 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008 Bench: P. R. Borkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.287 OF 1990 Ranba s\/o. Sattaji, ]..Appellants aged 75 years, Occ. Agri. R\/o. Wasarni, Tal. & Dist. Nanded. (Deceased) 1. Ahilyabai w\/o. Prabhakar Kandharkar Age. […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227449","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRanba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008 - 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\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-11T19:23:54+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-11T19:23:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1183,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-11T19:23:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 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":"Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008 - 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\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-11T19:23:54+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-11T19:23:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008"},"wordCount":1183,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008","name":"Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-11T19:23:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranba-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranba vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 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\/227449","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=227449"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227449\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227449"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227449"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227449"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}