{"id":243845,"date":"2011-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-12-16T12:00:07","modified_gmt":"2015-12-16T06:30:07","slug":"ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Md Shah,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/3474\/2009\t 11\/ 11\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. 3474 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nRAMANBHAI\nSAVJIBHAI JAKHWADIA, CHAIRMAN, VAGHRI BHAGWATI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKAVINA for MR ASIT B JOSHI\nfor\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS JIRGA JHAVERI, AGP for Respondent(s) :\n1-3 \nMR BHARAT JANI for Respondent(s) :\n4, \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 MD SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 25\/02\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>By<br \/>\n\tthis petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has challenged order dated 30-3-2009 passed by the<br \/>\n\tCollector, Ahmedabad, the respondent No.2 herein, forfeiting the<br \/>\n\tland bearing Survey No.58\/1 admeasuring 3630 sq.mtrs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Short<br \/>\n\tfacts arising from the present petition are that petitioner society,<br \/>\n\ta  Registered Co-operative Society  formed in 1977 by the members,<br \/>\n\twas allotted land admeasuring 3630 sq.mtrs. of Survey No.58 of<br \/>\n\tVejalpur, Ahmedabad, for construction of residences of its members<br \/>\n\ton certain terms and conditions.  Thereafter, non-agricultural<br \/>\n\tpermission and Raja Chhiti were granted by the concerned<br \/>\n\tauthorities. As the land was uneven and a Talavdi, levelling and<br \/>\n\tfilling were done on the land and construction was completed upto<br \/>\n\tplinth level.  As there were encroachments by hutment dwellers on<br \/>\n\tone side of the said land, several representations were made to the<br \/>\n\tauthorities. On introduction of Draft Town Planning Scheme No.3 of<br \/>\n\tVejalpur after enactment of Gujarat Town Planning &amp; Urban<br \/>\n\tDevelopment Act in June, 1976, there was a major change in the<br \/>\n\tboundaries of the land allotted to the petitioner society and as a<br \/>\n\tresult of which, the construction of the houses made by the members<br \/>\n\tof the society on the land became invalid. When construction was<br \/>\n\tgoing on prior to allotment of Final Plot, the petitioner society<br \/>\n\twas directed by the respondent No.4 by notice dated 18-12-1981 to<br \/>\n\tstop construction on the land in question. Thereafter on 23-11-1984<br \/>\n\twhen revised lay out plan was sanctioned, land admeasuring 900<br \/>\n\tsq.yrds. of the society was deducted  by the authority and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, compensation was sought by the petitioner society to be<br \/>\n\tawarded towards said deduction. The respondent No.4 thereafter<br \/>\n\tallotted Final Plot No.89 to the petitioner society vide<br \/>\n\tcommunication dated 26-3-1985. As there were encroachments even<br \/>\n\tafter allotment of Final Plot No.89, complaint was made to the<br \/>\n\tpolice for its removal apart from making representation to<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2. Due to aforesaid restraints, construction of their<br \/>\n\tresidential houses could not be completed. Thereafter in 1989,  a<br \/>\n\tdevelopment permission as per the revised plan was granted by the<br \/>\n\tLocal Area Development Authority and it was extended for a period of<br \/>\n\ttwo years.  Pursuant thereto, some members constructed pukka houses<br \/>\n\tand some kachha houses and they are residing therein by regularly<br \/>\n\tmaking payments towards taxes, electricity bills, revenues, etc.<br \/>\n\tHowever, on 12th\/18th May, 1999, the petitioner society<br \/>\n\trequested the respondent No.2 for construction of flats on the said<br \/>\n\tland for its members.  On 25-6-2000, a panchnama was drawn by<br \/>\n\tTalati-cum-Mantri that there were three pukka houses and 20 kachha<br \/>\n\thouses. Thereafter, certain details were sought by the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.3. Due to earthquake in 26-1-2001, they did not construct flats<br \/>\n\tinstead decided to construct tenements as per the sanctioned plan<br \/>\n\tand sought permission to induct new members in the society for<br \/>\n\tavailing financial assistance.  However, the respondent No.2<br \/>\n\tinitiated suo motu proceedings by issuing a show cause notice on<br \/>\n\t12-7-2001 for breach of condition No.4 of allotment order of 1971. A<br \/>\n\treply to the said notice was given  but no action was thereafter<br \/>\n\ttaken by the respondent authorities. Vide notification dated<br \/>\n\t20-7-2006 issued by the  State Government, land of the petitioner<br \/>\n\tsociety was  included in the existing limits of the City of<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad. Thereafter in 2006 when petitioner society submitted a<br \/>\n\trevised plan to the respondent No.4 for construction of flats and<br \/>\n\tcommercial premises on the said laid in 2006 for its members,<br \/>\n\texisting pukka and kachha constructions were directed to be removed.<br \/>\n\tAll of its members undertook to remove their pukka and kachha houses<br \/>\n\tas directed by the respondent No.4. An application submitted to<br \/>\n\tDistrict Registrar for change of name was allowed and the members<br \/>\n\tpaid Rs.19.00 lakhs to the local authority towards development and<br \/>\n\tscrutiny fees. The respondent No.4 thereafter suspended the<br \/>\n\tdevelopment permission granted to the petitioner and directed them<br \/>\n\tto obtain necessary permission from the respondent No.2. When they<br \/>\n\tapproached the respondent No.2, a show cause  was issued to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner society. Meanwhile, when the society requested the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.4 by representation dated 24-6-2008, NA permission was<br \/>\n\tdirected to be produced. According to the petitioner, initial<br \/>\n\tallotment of land was for NA purpose  and is still standing as NA in<br \/>\n\trevenue records. The petitioner on 27-2-2008 submitted an<br \/>\n\tapplication to respondent No.2 for construction of flats. However,<br \/>\n\tonce again suo motu show cause notice was issued by the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 on 28-4-2008 for the alleged breach of condition of allotment<br \/>\n\tafter a period of more than 38 years. In pursuance of reply<br \/>\n\tsubmitted by the petitioner on 6-5-2008, members of the society were<br \/>\n\tdirected to remain present by the respondent No.2 with all details<br \/>\n\tof new and existing members and on 27-5-2008, they remained present<br \/>\n\tand submitted all required details.  Thereafter, on 17-6-2008, the<br \/>\n\tmembers were required to submit their willingness to deposit the<br \/>\n\tpremium as may be fixed by respondent No.2 as per the jantri for<br \/>\n\tconsidering the proposal of petitioner Society. All these details<br \/>\n\twere also furnished by the petitioner society. As nothing was done<br \/>\n\tby the respondent No.2, the petitioner society filed Special Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication No.2590 of 2009. However, during the pendency of said<br \/>\n\tpetition, the respondent No.2 passed impugned order dated 30-3-2009<br \/>\n\twhereby the land in question was vested with the State Government<br \/>\n\tfor breach of condition. Hence, the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned Senior Counsel, Mr.Percy Kavina, for Mr.Asit B.Joshi for the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner, Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1<br \/>\n\tto 3 and learned advocate, Mr.Bharat Jani, for the respondent No.4.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tSenior Counsel, Mr.Kavina, submitted that no reasons were assigned<br \/>\n\tby the respondent No.2 in vesting the land in question with the<br \/>\n\tState Government. According to him, the impugned order is a<br \/>\n\tnon-speaking order and is against the principles of natural justice<br \/>\n\tand hence, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. Relying<br \/>\n\ton a decision of this Court reported in 1997(2) GLH page 633, it is<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that condition specifying time limit for completion of<br \/>\n\tconstruction work is directory and not mandatory. According to him,<br \/>\n\tsuch breach is only a technical breach which does not warrant any<br \/>\n\tserious or severe action of cancellation of permission and it can be<br \/>\n\tregularized by imposing fine or penalty. It is further submitted<br \/>\n\tthat in pursuance of representations dated 6-5-2008  and 27-5-2008,<br \/>\n\tthe respondent No.2-Collector vide communication dated 17-6-2008<br \/>\n\tsought certain details from the members of the society as to whether<br \/>\n\t all the existing and new members of the petitioner Society are<br \/>\n\twilling to pay the price fixed as per the Jantri or not. In<br \/>\n\tpursuance thereof, the petitioner Society vide reply dated 23-6-2008<br \/>\n\tfurnished all the details which, according to him, clearly establish<br \/>\n\t that case of the petitioner Society was considered by the Collector<br \/>\n\tfor regularisation  by imposing fine for the alleged breach,<br \/>\n\thowever, at a subsequent stage, without application of mind and in a<br \/>\n\tmechanical manner, passed the impugned order upon the instructions<br \/>\n\tof respondent No.1 which is not an independent decision and is<br \/>\n\tcontrary to the policy of Government and, therefore, prima facie,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for. It<br \/>\n\tis further submitted that the respondent No.2 has no<br \/>\n\tauthority to pass the impugned order as per Sec.3A(b) of the BPMC<br \/>\n\tAct, 1949 as the land in question has been included within the city<br \/>\n\tlimits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation after issuance of<br \/>\n\tnotification dated 20-7-2006 and while demarcating, size of the land<br \/>\n\thas been deducted. It is further submitted that although the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner society  submitted consent of  existing as well as new<br \/>\n\tmembers for payment of premium as may be fixed as per the jantry<br \/>\n\tvide their communication dated 23-6-2008 for regularisation in<br \/>\n\tpursuance of communication dated 17-6-2008 of respondent No.2, the<br \/>\n\timpugned order forfeiting the land ought not to have been passed by<br \/>\n\tthe respondent No.2 but the land ought to have been regularised.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthis connection, learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of this<br \/>\n\tCourt rendered in Bharat Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat<br \/>\n\treported in 2006(1)GCD 847(Guj) wherein<br \/>\n\tit has been held in para 6 as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;6.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs regards the  use  of  the  land  in question  for manufacturing<br \/>\n\tof  Badami  Coal is concerned, as per the petitioner the application<br \/>\n\twas made  and  intimation  was       given which  was not attended.<br \/>\n\tBut, it appears that, the land is used for the other industrial<br \/>\n\tpurpose.  When  the land is used for the industrial purpose, though<br \/>\n\tit can be       said  as  breach, such breach, in my view, cannot be<br \/>\n\tsaid to  be  so  serious  which  may  attract  the  order   of<br \/>\n\tforfeiture,  and  the  reason  being that the land is not      only<br \/>\n\tused for the other industry, but by establishment of the industry,<br \/>\n\tthe employment will  be  generated  to  the  public at  large.<br \/>\n\tHad it been a case where the land is      used for a industry which<br \/>\n\tis prohibited under the law  it  may stand on different footing.<br \/>\n\tHad it been a case where  the land is not actually used by the<br \/>\n\testablishment of the     industry it  may  also  stand on different<br \/>\n\tfooting.  When   the intimation was given and the application was<br \/>\n\tmade, it  was expected for the authority to consider the  same  and<br \/>\n\t    in  any  case when the land is actually used for industry  and<br \/>\n\teven as on today is used for the industry, and  there  is  no<br \/>\n\tmaterial  to  show  that  by  change of use for a      different<br \/>\n\tindustry  either  the  public  at  large   has    suffered  or  the<br \/>\n\tinterest of the Government would be to jeopardize, it would not be a<br \/>\n\tcase where the harsh action      of forfeiture of the land is called<br \/>\n\tfor.  Even  otherwise  also  in  a  matter where there is a breach<br \/>\n\tof condition, the discretion  would  rest  with  the  authority  as<br \/>\n\tto     whether  the penalty should be imposed or the land should  be<br \/>\n\tordered to be forfeited.   In  the  present  case,  it appears<br \/>\n\tthat,  the  State  Government  while  exercising revisional<br \/>\n\tjurisdiction has not  at  all  considered  the      aspect  as to<br \/>\n\twhether penalty would meet with the ends of  the justice or a strong<br \/>\n\tcase is  made  out  for  ordering forfeiture.   In  normal<br \/>\n\tcircumstances  if the breach of condition has resulted into a<br \/>\n\tserious loss of revenue  to the  Government  or  is  against  the<br \/>\n\tpublic interest or against any statutory provisions, it may call<br \/>\n\tfor  harsh action  of  forfeiture,  but  if  the  penalty  can  be a<br \/>\n\t     suitable mode, then in that case, it cannot be said  that in<br \/>\n\tevery case the order of forfeiture must follow in the event the<br \/>\n\tbreach  is  demonstrated.    What shall be the      quantum of<br \/>\n\tpenalty or the  mode  of  imposition  and  its recovery  are<br \/>\n\tessentially for the authority to decide but it appears that  when<br \/>\n\tthe  Quashi  Judicial  powers  are      exercised  by the State<br \/>\n\tGovernment, it was required to be considered by the State<br \/>\n\tGovernment  as  to  whether  the penalty  would  meet with the<br \/>\n\trequirements considering the breach or not.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis further submitted that suo motu proceedings for alleged breach of<br \/>\n\tcondition has been initiated after an inordinate delay of  more than<br \/>\n\t38 years and hence also, the impugned order is without jurisdiction<br \/>\n\tand contrary to the settled legal position by this Hon&#8217;ble Court. It<br \/>\n\tis therefore  prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set<br \/>\n\taside.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis submitted by learned AGP, Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, that the petitioner<br \/>\n\tsociety did not complete the construction within a period of two<br \/>\n\tyears from the date of allotment of land and thereby committed<br \/>\n\tbreach of condition No.4 and hence, in view of the continued breach<br \/>\n\tof conditions of allotment order for these long years, the Collector<br \/>\n\tpassed the order vesting the land with the State Government. It is<br \/>\n\tfurther submitted that when request was made by the petitioner to<br \/>\n\tconstruct flats by inducting new members in the society in the land<br \/>\n\tin question, it was forwarded to the State Government by the<br \/>\n\tCollector as the original allotment order was of the Revenue<br \/>\n\tDepartment of State Government and  it was opined by the Government<br \/>\n\tthat as there was a breach of condition of allotment of land and as<br \/>\n\tthe purpose was changed, request was not considered and in turn,<br \/>\n\tCollector, Ahmedabad passed impugned order resuming the land in<br \/>\n\tfavour of State Government.  According to her, all the<br \/>\n\trepresentations made by the petitioner society were considered<br \/>\n\tbefore passing the impugned order. She, therefore, submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe present petition be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate, Mr.Bharat Jani, supported the submissions made by learned<br \/>\n\tAGP.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tCourt has gone through the entire correspondences of the petitioner<br \/>\n\tSociety with the respondent authorities. It is to be noted that in<br \/>\n\tpursuance of representations made by the petitioner society, the<br \/>\n\tCollector asked to provide certain details. Asking for details can<br \/>\n\tby no stretch of imagination be construed that Collector has taken<br \/>\n\tdecision in favour of the petitioner Society. It is pertinent to<br \/>\n\tnote that only Government can decide regarding allotment of plot to<br \/>\n\tthe members of the Society and therefore, after fulfilling all the<br \/>\n\tformalities, the Collector sent the case of the petitioner Society<br \/>\n\tto the Government. Considering the fact that there is a breach of<br \/>\n\tcondition of allotment and also various other aspects,    Government<br \/>\n\thas taken decision to reject the demand made by the petitioner and<br \/>\n\tasked the Collector to pass a reasoned order and convey the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner Society. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner<br \/>\n\thad changed the constitution as well as the purpose and at present,<br \/>\n\tthey intended to construct flats instead of residences and also<br \/>\n\tsought permission to use some portion of the land for commercial<br \/>\n\tpurpose. However, later on, though the demand for use of the land<br \/>\n\tfor commercial purpose was withdrawn by the petitioner  society, the<br \/>\n\tentire proposal was changed and sought for allotment of land to<br \/>\n\tthem.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis also to be noted that at the end of arguments, learned Senior<br \/>\n\tCounsel for the petitioner sought to remand the matter. However,<br \/>\n\tlooking to the facts and circumstances, as this Court is of the<br \/>\n\topinion that remanding the matter would be a futile exercise, matter<br \/>\n\tis not being remanded.\n<\/p>\n<p>A<br \/>\n\tsubmission has been made on behalf of the petitioner that as the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner Society had deposited the amount, their demand ought to<br \/>\n\thave been met by AUDA. However,  it is to be noted that AUDA is a<br \/>\n\tdifferent authority and has no authority to take any decision till<br \/>\n\tfinal decision is taken by the Government for allotment of land as<br \/>\n\tit is the State Government which has the authority to decide about<br \/>\n\tallotment of land. In the present case, the State Government has<br \/>\n\tdecided decision and asked the Collector to pass a reasoned order<br \/>\n\tforfeiting the land. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated<br \/>\n\thereinabove, though this Court is in agreement with the principle<br \/>\n\tlaid down in the decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner, the petitioner society would not be entitled to any<br \/>\n\tbenefit.\n<\/p>\n<p>A<br \/>\n\tsubmission has also been made that construction has been made by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner Society. However, it is to be noted that panchnama on<br \/>\n\trecord indicates that only partial construction by one or two<br \/>\n\tmembers is made. Thus, total situation is now changed and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, after more than 38 years, the petitioner is not entitled<br \/>\n\tto any relief and hence, the Government has rightly decided the<br \/>\n\tmatter and ordered the respondent No.2 to pass reasoned order and<br \/>\n\tthe respondent No.2-Collector passed the impugned order. No<br \/>\n\tillegality or irregularity has been committed in passing the said<br \/>\n\timpugned order. Hence, the present petition is required to be<br \/>\n\tdismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis<br \/>\n\tpetition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief stands<br \/>\n\tvacated. Remedy is available to the petitioner society to approach<br \/>\n\tthe concerned respondent authority\/ies for refund of amount which<br \/>\n\thas been deposited.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(M.D.SHAH,J.)<\/p>\n<p>radhan<\/p>\n<p> Further<br \/>\nOrder<\/p>\n<p>\tAfter<br \/>\npronouncement of this judgment, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Kavina,<br \/>\nrequested that ad-interim relief may be extended for two weeks.<br \/>\nConsidering the facts and circumstances, ad-interim relief granted<br \/>\nearlier is extended for a period of two weeks.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(M.D.SHAH,J.)<\/p>\n<p>radhan<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011 Author: Md Shah, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/3474\/2009 11\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3474 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD 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-243845","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>Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011 - 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\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-16T06:30:07+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T06:30:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2692,\"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\\\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T06:30:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 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":"Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011 - 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\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-16T06:30:07+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T06:30:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011"},"wordCount":2692,"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\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","name":"Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T06:30:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramanbhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramanbhai vs State on 27 September, 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\/243845","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=243845"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243845\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243845"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243845"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243845"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}