{"id":230438,"date":"2011-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-10-25T07:24:56","modified_gmt":"2016-10-25T01:54:56","slug":"madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
     0107wp771.11.odt                                                                1\/12\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n           WRIT PETITION NOS.771\/2011, 1034\/2011, 1076\/2011,\n               1788\/2011, 1793\/2011, 1794\/2011 & 1797\/2011\n                           ---------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
                        WRIT PETITION NO.771\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONER :-           Madhavrao S\/o Krishnarao Zade,<\/p>\n
                             Aged 73 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
\n                      ig     R\/o Champanwadi, Post, Tq. and Dist.\n<\/p>\n
                             Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                  …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENTS :-       1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
\n                             Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department,
\n                             Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
                          2. The Collector, Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                          3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Waghadi
\n                             Project, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal,
\n                             Minor Irrigation Work No.1 Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                       WITH
\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.1034\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONER :-           Padmakar S\/o Mahadev Kawale,
\n                             Aged 48 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,<\/p>\n
                             R\/o Saikheda (Bk.), Tahsil and District
\n                             Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                  …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENTS :-       1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
\n                             Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department,
\n                             Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      0107wp771.11.odt                                                           2\/12<\/p>\n
                          2. The Collector, Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                          3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Waghadi <\/p>\n
                             Project, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal,
\n                             Minor Irrigation Work No.1 Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                    WITH<\/p>\n
                        WRIT PETITION NO.1076\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONER :-           Shri Madhukar Dattuji Kawle,
\n                             Aged 65 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,<\/p>\n
                             R\/o Saikhada (BK.), Post Yelabara,
\n                             Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal. appointed PoA
\n                      ig     Mr.Ravindra Madhukar Kawle.\n<\/p>\n
                                 …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENTS :-       1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
\n                             Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department,
\n                             Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
                          2. The Collector, Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                          3. The Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.W.\n<\/p>\n
                             No.1, (Waghadi Project), Yavatmal,
\n                             District Yavatmal, Minor Irrigation
\n                             Work No.1 Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                    WITH
\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.1788\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONER :-           Shri Ashok Vishwanath Zade, <\/p>\n
                             Aged 52 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
\n                             R\/o Daheli, Post Yelabara,
\n                             Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                 …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENTS :-       1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
\n                             Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department,
\n                             Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      0107wp771.11.odt                                                           3\/12\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                          2. The Collector, Yavatmal.\n                          3. The Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.W.\n                             No.1, (Waghadi Project), Yavatmal, \n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                             District Yavatmal, Minor Irrigation \n                             Work No.1 Yavatmal.\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                                    WITH\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.1793\/2011\n     PETITIONER :-           Babaji @ Balaji S\/o Shamrao Nival,\n                             Aged 75 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n                             R\/o & Post Yelabara,\n                      ig     Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.\n\n                                 ...VERSUS... \n                    \n<\/pre>\n
     RESPONDENTS :-       1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
\n                             Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department,
\n                             Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
                          2. The Collector, Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                          3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Waghadi
\n                             Project, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal,<\/p>\n
                             Minor Irrigation Work No.1 Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                    WITH<\/p>\n
                        WRIT PETITION NO.1794\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONER :-           Shri Vinayak Kashinath Zade,
\n                             Aged 57 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
\n                             R\/o Daheli, Post Yelabara,
\n                             Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal. appointed <\/p>\n
                             Power of Attorney
\n                             Mr.Manjit Vinayak Zade.\n<\/p>\n
                                 …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENTS :-       1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
\n                             Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department,
\n                             Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      0107wp771.11.odt                                                                                4\/12<\/p>\n
                                    2. The Collector, Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                    3. The Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.W.\n<\/p>\n
                                       No.1, (Waghadi Project), Yavatmal, <\/p>\n
                                       District Yavatmal, Minor Irrigation
\n                                       Work No.1 Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   WITH
\n                                 WRIT PETITION NO.1797\/2011
\n     PETITIONER :-                       Ramchandra S\/o Bapurao Mangam,
\n                                         Aged 57 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,<\/p>\n
                                         R\/o Saikheda (Bk.), Tahsil and District
\n                          ig             Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENTS :-                 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
\n                                       Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department,
\n                                       Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
                                    2. The Collector, Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                    3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Waghadi
\n                                       Project, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal,<\/p>\n
                                       Minor Irrigation Work No.1 Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                 Shri S. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners.<\/p>\n
                      Shri A. D.Sonak, learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader with
\n               Ms T. Khan, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents\n<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                                   CORAM :  R. M. SAVANT J.<\/p>\n
\n                                                   DATED  :  01.07.2011 \n\n\n\n\n\n     O R A L    J U D G M E N T\n\n\n     1)       Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and \n\n     heard. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span>\n      0107wp771.11.odt                                                                         5\/12\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n     2)      The   above   writ   petitions   involved   identical   facts   and   common \n\n<\/pre>\n
     questions and are therefore heard and disposed of together.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3)      The petitioners in the above petitions are aggrieved by the order <\/p>\n
     dated 10th  November, 2010 passed by the learned 3rd  Joint Civil Judge, <\/p>\n
     Senior Division, Yavatmal, by which the execution application filed by the <\/p>\n
     petitioners for execution of order of this Court dated 18th  October, 2004 <\/p>\n
     came to be rejected on the ground that the order of this Court passed in a <\/p>\n
     writ petition could not be executed by the trial Court and that the parties <\/p>\n
     can avail of appropriate remedy for the implementation of the order of <\/p>\n
     this Court passed in a writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
     4)      The facts in brief can be stated thus.\n<\/p>\n
             Petitioner Madhavrao in Writ Petition No.771\/2011, which is the <\/p>\n
     lead matter, was the owner of Survey No.1\/1, area admeasuring 1 hectare <\/p>\n
     87   ares   situated   at   Wagada   village,   Taluka   and   District   Yavatmal.   The <\/p>\n
     lands of the petitioners in the companion writ petitions are also from the <\/p>\n
     same village.  The petitioner in the above petition and the petitioners in <\/p>\n
     the   companion   writ   petitions   would   be   referred   to   hereinafter   as   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners.   It   appears   from   the   record   that   on   11\/08\/1978   the   Land <\/p>\n
     Acquisition Officer passed an Award and granted compensation at the rate <\/p>\n
     of   Rs.3,000\/-   per   hectare   in   respect   of   the   lands   of   the   said   village.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      0107wp771.11.odt                                                                       6\/12<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved by the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer by <\/p>\n
     the   said   Award,   some   of   the   land   owners   from   the   said   village   filed <\/p>\n
     reference applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before <\/p>\n
     the Civil Court amongst which, reference was L.A.C. No.190\/1988 filed by <\/p>\n
     one Shri Manik.   The Reference Court by its judgment and order dated <\/p>\n
     17\/04\/1990 enhanced the compensation to Rs.18,000\/- per hectare along <\/p>\n
     with the commensurate statutory benefits to which the land owners were <\/p>\n
     entitled.  The petitioners herein became aware of the said judgment dated <\/p>\n
     17\/04\/1990 passed in the said Land Acquisition Case No.190\/1988 and <\/p>\n
     the petitioners thereafter filed an application under Section 28(A) of the <\/p>\n
     said Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal on receipt of the <\/p>\n
     said   application   agreed   to   grant   the   enhanced   compensation   to   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners as per the judgment of the Civil Court in the said Reference, by <\/p>\n
     the letter dated 21\/11\/1991, the Land Acquisition Officer agreed to pay <\/p>\n
     the   enhanced   compensation   by   31\/01\/1992.   On   non   receipt   of   the <\/p>\n
     enhanced   compensation,   the   petitioners   were   constrained   to   file   writ <\/p>\n
     petition being numbered as Writ Petition No.917\/1992 in this Court.  This <\/p>\n
     Court   directed   the   respondents   to   make   the   payment   of   the   enhanced <\/p>\n
     compensation dated 29th April, 1992.  In spite of the said judgment dated <\/p>\n
     29\/04\/1992,   passed   in   the   said   Writ   Petition   No.917\/1992,   no <\/p>\n
     compensation was paid, the petitioners in the above petitions, therefore, <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n      0107wp771.11.odt                                                                    7\/12<\/p>\n
     had filed contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts <\/p>\n
     Act.     The   said   contempt   petition   was   registered   as   Contempt   Petition <\/p>\n
     No.173\/1992.  In the interregnum, the respondents herein filed a Review <\/p>\n
     Application for review of the said judgment dated 29\/04\/1992 passed in <\/p>\n
     Writ   Petition   No.917\/1992.     The   said   Review   Application   came   to   be <\/p>\n
     registered   as   Miscellaneous   Civil   Application   No.259\/1992.     The   said <\/p>\n
     Contempt Petition No.262\/1992 and Miscellaneous Civil Application No.<\/p>\n
     259\/1992 were heard together and disposed of by common order dated <\/p>\n
     14\/10\/1992 whilst the Review Application was dismissed, in so far as the <\/p>\n
     Contempt   Petition   was   concerned,   the   respondents   were   directed   to <\/p>\n
     release   the   amount   of   enhanced   compensation   as   per   the   order   dated <\/p>\n
     29\/04\/1992 from the date of the said order.  In spite of the said direction <\/p>\n
     issued, the respondents did not comply with the said order passed in the <\/p>\n
     Contempt   Petition.   The   petitioners,   therefore,   were   once   again <\/p>\n
     constrained   to   file   another   contempt   petition,   which   was  numbered   as <\/p>\n
     Contempt   Petition   No.292\/1992   and   this   Court   by   order   dated <\/p>\n
     29\/04\/1993   was   pleased   to   dispose   of   the   said   Contempt   Petition   by <\/p>\n
     saddling cost on the respondent No.2, Collector and issuing direction that <\/p>\n
     the said order to be complied within 15 days.\n<\/p>\n
     5)     The   matter   did   not   rest   there,   the   petitioners   were   again <\/p>\n
     constrained to file Writ Petition No.1695\/1996 in which a civil application <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n      0107wp771.11.odt                                                                     8\/12<\/p>\n
     also came to be filed by them which was numbered as Civil Application <\/p>\n
     No.2448\/2007 in the said Civil Application, an order came to be passed <\/p>\n
     on 10th April, 2007 directing the respondents to deposit the said amount <\/p>\n
     in the Court immediately.   Thereafter the petitioners filed Writ Petition <\/p>\n
     No.3230\/009 and this Court directed the respondents to release the said <\/p>\n
     amount within a period of six months.   After the said order came to be <\/p>\n
     passed, Writ Petition No.1695\/1996 had came up for hearing in this Court <\/p>\n
     and   this   Court   by   order   dated   01\/12\/2008   directed   the   petitioners   to <\/p>\n
     exhaust the remedy under Order 17 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code <\/p>\n
     by filing execution proceedings before the Civil Court.   Accordingly, the <\/p>\n
     petitioners   had   filed   an   execution   proceeding   which   was   registered   as <\/p>\n
     L.A.C.Execution   Case   No.135\/2009   before   the   Civil   Judge,   Senior <\/p>\n
     Division, Yavatmal.  The said execution proceedings have been disposed of <\/p>\n
     by   the   learned   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division,   Yavatmal   on   the   grounds <\/p>\n
     mentioned in the earlier part of this order, the petitioners aggrieved by <\/p>\n
     the said order dated 10\/11\/2010 have approached this Court once again <\/p>\n
     by way of the above petitions.\n<\/p>\n
     6)      As can be seen from the conspectus of facts as narrated above, the <\/p>\n
     payment of compensation to the petitioners has had a chequered history <\/p>\n
     and the petitioners had to approach this Court on numerous occasions by <\/p>\n
     filing writ petitions and contempt petitions but as yet according to the <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n      0107wp771.11.odt                                                                           9\/12<\/p>\n
     petitioners,   they   have   not   been   paid   the   compensation   that   they   are <\/p>\n
     entitled to in law.\n<\/p>\n
     7)      In response to the above petitions, the respondent No.3 has filed an <\/p>\n
     affidavit   in   reply.     The   sum   and   substance   of   the   affidavit   is   that   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners have already been paid the compensation that they are entitled <\/p>\n
     to and, therefore, there is no cause for them to file for execution of the <\/p>\n
     order dated 01\/12\/2008 passed by this Court.   The said affidavit  inter  <\/p>\n
     alia discloses the amounts that have been paid to the petitioners in each <\/p>\n
     of the above petitions.   The said statement in the affidavit to the effect <\/p>\n
     that all the petitioners having been paid the compensation in full that they <\/p>\n
     were entitled to in law, is controverted by the learned counsel appearing <\/p>\n
     for the petitioners.  It is the case of the petitioners that they would be in a <\/p>\n
     position to demonstrate that though certain payments have been made, <\/p>\n
     they have not received the compensation in full, that they are entitled to <\/p>\n
     in law.\n<\/p>\n
     8)      Now coming to the impugned order that has been passed by the <\/p>\n
     trial Court.  The petitioners undoubtedly had applied for execution of the <\/p>\n
     order dated 18\/10\/2004 passed in the execution application Exhibit No.1 <\/p>\n
     filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.771\/2011 similar applications <\/p>\n
     were   filed   by   the   other   petitioners   in   the   companion   writ   petitions <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n      0107wp771.11.odt                                                                    10\/12<\/p>\n
     wherein the impugned orders bear different dates.  The impugned order <\/p>\n
     in Writ Petition No.771\/2011 passed by the trial Court  ex facie  discloses <\/p>\n
     that the trial Court has refused to exercise jurisdiction, in view of the fact <\/p>\n
     that the order passed by this Court in a writ petition cannot be executed <\/p>\n
     by it.   In the said context, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 23 of <\/p>\n
     Chapter 17 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, which <\/p>\n
     is reproduced herein under –\n<\/p>\n
            “23.  Execution of order or decree on Original Side. –  Any
\n            order or decree in a Civil Application under Article 226 of the
\n            Constitution   passed   on   the   Appellate   Side   and   the  <\/p>\n
            non-satisfaction   of   which   has   been   reported   to   the   State
\n            Government under the preceding rule may be transmitted to the
\n            Original Side of this Court for execution and, if so transmitted,  <\/p>\n
            shall be executed in accordance with the procedure prescribed  <\/p>\n
            for execution of decrees and orders passed in the exercise of the
\n            Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction of this Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    [Explanation – An order or decree in a Civil Application  <\/p>\n
            under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, decided at the
\n            Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji will be transmitted
\n            to the Court of competent civil jurisdiction for execution.]”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9)     In the teeth of the said Rule, in my view, the ground on which the <\/p>\n
     trial Court has rejected the execution application filed by the petitioners <\/p>\n
     cannot be sustained as can be gathered from a reading of the explanation <\/p>\n
     to the said Rule, that an order or decree passed in a proceeding under <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n      0107wp771.11.odt                                                                      11\/12<\/p>\n
     Article 226 of the Constitution of India, decided at the Benches of this <\/p>\n
     Court at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji would have to be transmitted to <\/p>\n
     the Court of competent civil jurisdiction for execution.  Hence, the order <\/p>\n
     dated   18\/10\/2004   can   be   executable   by   the   Court   of   the   Civil   Judge, <\/p>\n
     Senior Division, who has passed the original Award on the basis which of <\/p>\n
     the  applications  under  Section 28A   were  filed  by  the   petitioners.    The <\/p>\n
     petitioners would therefore have to file applications in this Court, which <\/p>\n
     would   thereafter   be   transmitted   to   the   appropriate   Civil   Court   of <\/p>\n
     competent jurisdiction, which would undoubtedly be the concerned Civil <\/p>\n
     Judge,   Senior   Division.     This   aspect   would   cover   the   tenability   of   the <\/p>\n
     execution application qua and order passed in a writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
     10)     In so far as the stand of the respondents is concerned, viz. that the <\/p>\n
     petitioners had been paid in full compensation as per entitlement in law, it <\/p>\n
     would   be   for   the   respondents   to   urge   the   same   before   the   concerned <\/p>\n
     Court, which takes up the matter for execution, as also put forward such <\/p>\n
     defences against the execution as they may be advised and it would be for <\/p>\n
     the   concerned   court   trying   the   execution   applications   to   deal  with   the <\/p>\n
     execution applications on their own merits and in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
     11)     In that view of the matter, the above petitions would have to be <\/p>\n
     allowed and the impugned order dated 10\/11\/2010 would have to be set <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n      0107wp771.11.odt                                                                    12\/12<\/p>\n
     aside and is accordingly set aside with liberty to the petitioners to file <\/p>\n
     appropriate applications for execution, which can be transmitted to the <\/p>\n
     Court of competent civil jurisdiction for execution in terms of Rule 23 of <\/p>\n
     the The Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.  In the event, the <\/p>\n
     question of limitation arises, the fact that the petitioners were prosecuting <\/p>\n
     the   execution   applications   filed   before   the   trial   Court   in   which   the <\/p>\n
     impugned orders came to be passed up to the date of the instant order <\/p>\n
     would be considered by the trial Court whilst considering the application <\/p>\n
     for   condonation  of  delay.    In  the  event,  the   execution  applications   are <\/p>\n
     filed, the petitioners to give prior notice to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     12)      Rule is accordingly made absolute in each of the above petitions in <\/p>\n
     the aforesaid terms.  The parties to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   JUDGE <\/p>\n
     KHUNTE<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:57 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant 0107wp771.11.odt 1\/12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NOS.771\/2011, 1034\/2011, 1076\/2011, 1788\/2011, 1793\/2011, 1794\/2011 & 1797\/2011 ——————————— WRIT PETITION NO.771\/2011 PETITIONER :- Madhavrao S\/o Krishnarao Zade, Aged 73 years, Occ.: Agriculturist, […]<\/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-230438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMadhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011 - 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\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-25T01:54:56+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T01:54:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2215,\"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\\\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T01:54:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011 - 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\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-25T01:54:56+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T01:54:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011"},"wordCount":2215,"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\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011","name":"Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T01:54:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/230438","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=230438"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230438\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}