{"id":242207,"date":"2008-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-12T11:33:01","modified_gmt":"2015-07-12T06:03:01","slug":"authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&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\nSCA\/6246\/2008\t 7\/ 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\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6246 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n\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\nAUTHORISED\nOFFICER &amp; 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMIRABEN\nGAJANAND PAREKH &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPRASHANT G DESAI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR MP SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMS.\nKRUTI M SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for\nRespondent(s) :\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 M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>By<br \/>\n\tway of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners ?  original<br \/>\n\tdefendants have prayed for appropriate writ, order and\/or<br \/>\n\tdirections, for quashing and setting aside the judgement and order<br \/>\n\tdtd.28\/2\/2008 passed by the  learned Presiding Officer, FTC No.5,<br \/>\n\tSurat at Vyara in Misc.Civil Appeal No.13 of 2005  in allowing the<br \/>\n\tsame by quashing and setting aside the order dtd.5\/4\/2005 passed by<br \/>\n\tthe learned Senior Civil Judge (SD), Bardoli below application Ex.5<br \/>\n\tin Regular Civil Suit No.  198 of 2003, directing the petitioners<br \/>\n\therein not to demolish the suit  property i.e. Bungalow No.264  of<br \/>\n\tSurvey No. 113  without following the provisions of the Gujarat Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter shall be<br \/>\n\treferred to as  ?Sthe Act?? for short) strictly.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tintention to prepare Town Planning Scheme<br \/>\n\tNo.2 (Bardoli) was declared and in the said Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Scheme, Sarvoday Cooperative Housing Society was<br \/>\n\tholding  Revenue Survey No.4790 and other Survey Numbers which were<br \/>\n\tgiven original plot in the said Town Planning<br \/>\n\tScheme. The said society was given Final Plots admeasuring<br \/>\n\t29765.45 sq.mtrs. and the remaining portion was carved out for the<br \/>\n\troad purpose. That the Town Planning Scheme<br \/>\n\thas become final under the provisions of the Act. That the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1  herein ?  original plaintiff is having her<br \/>\n\tresidential premises which is going in the Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Road under the finalised Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Scheme. A notice was issued to the respondent No.1\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8211; original plaintiff by the Town Planning Officer in respect of<br \/>\n\tcompensation on 9\/5\/1983. It is to be noted that even an opportunity<br \/>\n\twas given  prior to the finalisation of the Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Scheme. Preliminary Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Scheme came to be sanctioned by the State Government<br \/>\n\ton 24\/11\/1983 and the same came to be finalised b the State<br \/>\n\tGovernment on 20\/11\/1990. That thereafter, the petitioners issued<br \/>\n\tnotice under sec.68 of the Act and Rule 33 of the Rules for removal<br \/>\n\tof the offending construction which was going in the Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Road and therefore, the respondent No.1 herein ?<br \/>\n\toriginal plaintiff  filed Regular Civil Suit No.  198 of 2003 before<br \/>\n\tthe trial court along with an application at Ex.5 for interim<br \/>\n\tinjunction. Initially the learned trial court passed order of<br \/>\n\tstatus-quo, however, subsequently, after considering the provisions<br \/>\n\tof the Act  and various decisions of this Court,  the trial court by<br \/>\n\tthe order dtd.5\/4\/2005 rejected the application Ex.5 and vacated the<br \/>\n\torder of status-quo. Being aggrieved by the  order passed below<br \/>\n\tapplication Ex.5 dtd.5\/4\/2005 in vacating the order of status quo,<br \/>\n\tthe respondent No.1 ?  original plaintiff preferred Civil<br \/>\n\tMisc.Appeal No.13 of 2005, which came to be heard by the learned<br \/>\n\tPresiding Officer, FTC No.5, Surat at Vyara, who wide his judgement<br \/>\n\tand order dtd.28\/2\/2008 allowed the said appeal by directing the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners herein not to demolish the suit property i.e Bungalow<br \/>\n\tNo.264 of Survey No.113  without following the provisions of the Act<br \/>\n\tstrictly. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners original<br \/>\n\tdefendants have preferred the present Special Civil Application<br \/>\n\tunder Article 227  of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Prashant<br \/>\n\tG.Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the  petitioners<br \/>\n\thas vehemently submitted that the appellate court has materially<br \/>\n\terred in allowing the appeal. It is submitted that  once Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Scheme has become final and some portion of the<br \/>\n\tproperty in question is going under the Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Road under the finalised Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Scheme, everybody has to act as per the finalised<br \/>\n\tTown Planning Scheme and as such it is<br \/>\n\tthe duty cast  upon the appropriate authority to implement the<br \/>\n\tfinalised Town Planning Scheme. It is<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that for implementation of the finalised Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Scheme notice under sec.68 of the Act read with<br \/>\n\tsec.33 of the Rules came to be issued and considering the same when<br \/>\n\tthe trial court has vacated the order of status-quo, the appellate<br \/>\n\tcourt ought not to have allowed the appeal disturbing the order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the trial court. It is further submitted that as such on<br \/>\n\timplementation of the finalised Town Planning<br \/>\n\tScheme all the lands vest in the appropriate authority absolutely<br \/>\n\tfree from all encumbrances and therefore, it is requested to allow<br \/>\n\tthe present Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Prashant<br \/>\n\tDesai,  learned advocate appearing on behalf of the  petitioners has<br \/>\n\trelied upon the decisions of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case<br \/>\n\tof The Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and another<br \/>\n\tVs. The Advance Builders (India) Pvt.Ltd. and others,<br \/>\n\treported in AIR 1972 SC 793 and in the case of N.Nandlal<br \/>\n\tKiklawala and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others,<br \/>\n\treported in AIR 2006 SC 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetition is opposed by Ms.Kruti Shah, learned advocate appearing on<br \/>\n\tbehalf of the  respondent No.1 ?  original plaintiff b submitting<br \/>\n\tthat the land in question was released from the acquisition under<br \/>\n\tthe Land Acquisition Act and considering the same, the appellate<br \/>\n\tcourt has allowed the appeal and therefore, the same is not required<br \/>\n\tto be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the powers under<br \/>\n\tArticle 227  of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that<br \/>\n\tunless and until, compensation as provided under the Land<br \/>\n\tAcquisition Act, is paid to the respondent No.1 ?  original<br \/>\n\tplaintiff, the appropriate authority cannot demolish the<br \/>\n\tconstruction and cannot take the possession of the property of the<br \/>\n\tdisputed property. By making above submissions, it is requested to<br \/>\n\tdismiss the present Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tthe learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties<\/p>\n<p>At<br \/>\n\tthe outset, it is required to be noted that the Town Planning Scheme<br \/>\n\tNo.2 (Bardoli) is finalised and has been sanctioned by the State<br \/>\n\tGovernment way back in the year 1990 and some portion of the<br \/>\n\tresidential premises of the respondent No.1 ?  original plaintiff<br \/>\n\tis going under the finalsied Town Planning Scheme. For<br \/>\n\timplementation of the Town Planning Scheme, the authority issued<br \/>\n\tnotice under sec.68 of the Act read with rule 33 of the Rules. As<br \/>\n\theld by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the The Municipal<br \/>\n\tCorporation for Greater Bombay (Supra) it is the duty of the<br \/>\n\tappropriate authority to implement the Town Planning Scheme.  In the<br \/>\n\tcase of N. Nandlal Kiklawala and Another (supra), the<br \/>\n\tHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court considering the aforesaid decision, has<br \/>\n\tdirected  the appropriate authority to implement the sanctioned Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Scheme, by holding that the statutory consequences which<br \/>\n\tflow from sanctioning of the Scheme must be followed. It is to be<br \/>\n\tnoted that the Town Planning Scheme has become final after<br \/>\n\tconsidering the objections by the society as well as the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1 ?  original plaintiff. Under the provisions of the Act, once<br \/>\n\tthe Town Planning Scheme has become final and is sanctioned, it<br \/>\n\tbecomes part of the Act and it cannot be challenged. On<br \/>\n\timplementation of the Town Planning Scheme, all the lands vest in<br \/>\n\tthe appropriate authority free from all encumbrances. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners have been issued notices under sec.68 of the Act read<br \/>\n\twith rule 33 of the Rules for implementations of the final Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Scheme and  for widening of the Town Planning Road, which<br \/>\n\tis sanctioned under the Act. In view of the above, for the purpose<br \/>\n\tof the implementation of the Town Planning Scheme which has become<br \/>\n\tfinal, if any construction is to be removed, then that consequences<br \/>\n\tmust follow.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tcontention on behalf of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of<br \/>\n\tthe  respondent No.1 ?  original plaintiff that earlier  the land<br \/>\n\tin question was sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act<br \/>\n\tand the same was released. However, it is to be noted that the<br \/>\n\tproceedings  under the Land Acquisition Act and the the Town<br \/>\n\tPlanning Act are different. Now so far as the submissions on behalf<br \/>\n\tof the respondent No.1 that plaintiff should be paid compensation<br \/>\n\tunder the Land Acquisition Act is concerned, the same cannot be<br \/>\n\taccepted. Whatever  is available to the respondent No.1 by way of<br \/>\n\tcompensation under the Town Planning Act can be paid to her and the<br \/>\n\tcompensation as provided under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be<br \/>\n\tpaid to her, as the land is not acquired under the Land Acquisition<br \/>\n\tAct, but the land is going under the Town Planning Act.  Considering<br \/>\n\tabove facts and circumstances and the aforesaid two decisions of the<br \/>\n\tHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the appellate court has<br \/>\n\tcommitted an error in restraining the appropriate authority  to<br \/>\n\tdemolish the construction which is required to be demolished for the<br \/>\n\tpurpose of widening of the Town Planning Road under the finalised<br \/>\n\tTown Planning Scheme and therefore, the same requires to be quashed<br \/>\n\tand set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>For<br \/>\n\tthe reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. The impugned<br \/>\n\tjudgement and order dtd.28\/2\/2008 passed by the  learned Presiding<br \/>\n\tOfficer, FTC No.5, Surat at Vyara in Civil Misc.Appeal No.13 of 2005<br \/>\n\tis hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.<br \/>\n\tIn the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order<br \/>\n\tas to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n<p>rafik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/6246\/2008 7\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6246 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-242207","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>Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 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\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-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=\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-12T06:03:01+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T06:03:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1487,\"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\\\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T06:03:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 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":"Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 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\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-12T06:03:01+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T06:03:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008"},"wordCount":1487,"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\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008","name":"Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T06:03:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authorised-vs-miraben-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Authorised vs Miraben on 30 July, 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\/242207","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=242207"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242207\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242207"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242207"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242207"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}