{"id":248780,"date":"2010-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-03T12:20:34","modified_gmt":"2018-04-03T06:50:34","slug":"state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/72\/2000\t 5\/ 5\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 72 of 2000\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6421 of 1998\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\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\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 5 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nABDULHAMIDKHAN\nHUSENYAVAKHAN JIBABI & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nGOVERNMENT\nPLEADER for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 6. \nMR HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \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 JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/11\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n
The present appeal arises against
\n\tthe judgement dated 15.1.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of
\n\tthis Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application No.6421 of 1998,
\n\twhereby the petition of the State against the order of the
\n\tRevisional Authority has been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
In order to consider the matter,
\n\treference to certain facts would be relevant, which can be narrated
\n\tas under.\n<\/p>\n
The subject matter of the property
\n\tis located at Ward No.7 Tika No.222 City Survey No.3531 (hereinafter
\n\treferred to as the ‘property in question’ for the sake of
\n\tconvenience).  As per the appellate State the property was in
\n\tpossession of the State and Observation Home was located at the said
\n\tplace.  In P.R.B. Register in 1955-56, the property stood in the
\n\tname of the Government and as per the appellate State the property
\n\tin the Municipal Record also stood in the name of the Government.
\n\tThereafter, when the City Survey was undertaken the entry was
\n\tmutated in the Revenue Record on 13.1.1969 for showing the property
\n\tas that of the State Government.  The respondent herein did not
\n\tchallenge the said City Survey record and the decision of the
\n\tconcerned officer for a long time, but it appears that on 30th
\n\tSeptember, 1989, the appeal was preferred by the respondent before
\n\tthe Deputy Collector against the decision of the competent authority
\n\tof the City Survey for showing the property as that of the
\n\tGovernment.  The said appeal came to be transferred to the District
\n\tCollector since the competent officer was of Class-I cadre of the
\n\tCity Survey Department.  The appeal was registered as Appeal No.61
\n\tof 1990.  The District Collector in appeal vide order dated
\n\t16.9.1992 found that upon the merger of all Princely States of
\n\tSaurashtra, the properties of Sardargadh State vest to the State
\n\tGovernment and no evidence was produced to show that the same was
\n\tpersonal property of the appellant.  It was also recorded by the
\n\tDistrict Collector in the said order that the property earlier was
\n\tshown in P.R.B. Register as that of the State Government and the
\n\tpossession is also of the PWD Department and the same is being used
\n\tfor juvenile Court.  Therefore, there was no question of issuing any
\n\tnotice under Section 135B of the Land Revenue Code and consequently
\n\tthe appeal came to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent herein preferred
\n\trevision before the Secretary of the State Government and in the
\n\trevisional proceedings the Secretary of the State Government found
\n\tthat in the Ordinance for administration of properties, the present
\n\tproperty is not included and, therefore, it cannot be believed that
\n\tthe property is belonging to the State Government and it was also
\n\tfound that merely because the possession is of the Government, it
\n\tcannot be said that the property belongs to the Government and,
\n\ttherefore, he allowed the revision.  The petitioner State –
\n\tappellant herein preferred Special Civil Application before this
\n\tCourt against the aforesaid decision of the Secretary of the State
\n\tGovernment in revisional jurisdiction.  The learned Single Judge
\n\texamined the matter and was mainly guided by the fact that in the
\n\tOrdinance, this property was not included and, therefore, the
\n\tproperty held by the person in personal capacity as Talukdar of
\n\tSardargadh could not have been vested in the State and consequently
\n\tthe learned Single judge confirmed the order of the Secretary of the
\n\tState Government in revisional jurisdiction.  It is under these
\n\tcircumstances, the State has preferred the present LPA.\n<\/p>\n
We have heard Mr.Nanavati, learned
\n\tAGP for the appellant State and Mr.Ashish Shah for Mr.Raval, learned
\n\tCounsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
At the outset, Mr.Shah for
\n\tMr.Raval, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the
\n\tpresent LPA would not be maintainable, because Special Civil
\n\tApplication was in substance under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution
\n\tof India since it arose from the order passed by the Secretary of
\n\tthe State Government in revisional jurisdiction under the Bombay
\n\tLand Revenue Code.\n<\/p>\n
Whereas, the learned AGP contended
\n\tthat the petition was also under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of
\n\tIndia and, therefore, the LPA could be maintained.\n<\/p>\n
We find that in the title of the
\n\tpetition, it is mentioned as under Articles 226 and 227 of the
\n\tConstitution of India.  Further, the perusal of the order passed by
\n\tthe learned Single Judge shows that the learned Single Judge has,
\n\tfor the first time, in exercise of the power in further examination
\n\tof the title in a dispute arising for the maintenance of the revenue
\n\trecord, which would only be available under Article 226<\/a> of the
\n\tConstitution, of course, simultaneously while considering the
\n\tlegality and validity of the order passed by the Secretary of the
\n\tState Government in revisional jurisdiction.  Upon such being the
\n\tsituation, the petition could also be said as under Article 226<\/a> as
\n\twell as under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India.  Therefore,
\n\tit is not possible to accept the contention that the present LPA
\n\tbeing intra Court appeal would not be maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
It is by now well settled that the
\n\trevenue entry assumes importance only for the fiscal purpose, but
\n\tneither confirms the title, nor takes away the title.  Therefore,
\n\tthe attempt made by the respondent to reverse the entry made in
\n\tfavour of the Government by establishing the title in the entry
\n\tproceedings can hardly be countenanced.  It is true that if the
\n\tentry is to be revered and\/or modified, notice is required to be
\n\tissued to the person affected thereby, but the pertinent aspect is
\n\tthat prior to 1969 when the records of rights was prepared by the
\n\tCity Survey Department, the property was already shown in the P.R.B.
\n\tRegister under the possession of the State Government.  Further, it
\n\tis an admitted fact that the possession of the property was with the
\n\tState PWD Department and the building was used for juvenile Court.
\n\tUnder these circumstances, when earlier entry did not exist for
\n\tshowing the name of the respondent and if at the time of preparation
\n\tof the City Survey Record the concerned Officer has decided to show
\n\tthe property in possession of the State Government, there was no
\n\tquestion of hearing to be given to the respondent, more particularly
\n\twhen nothing at the relevant point of time was on record to show
\n\tthat the property was in the name of the respondent as per the
\n\tRegister or the Revenue Record, as the case may be.  Apart from the
\n\tabove, the pertinent aspect is that the respondent is said to be the
\n\tsuccessor of the ruler of the then Sardargadh State, after
\n\tindependence all Princely State of Saurashtra merged with the United
\n\tState of Kathiawad and thereafter the United State of Kathiawad was
\n\trenamed as State of Saurashtra.\n<\/p>\n
Even if it is considered that the
\n\tRuler of Sardargadh State did not sign covenant at the initial stage
\n\tfor merger with United State of Kathiawad, which has been
\n\tsubsequently renamed as State of Saurashtra, then also the Ordinance
\n\tof 1950 does provide for vesting of the property in the Manager or
\n\tthe Collector of Saurashtra District of the State of Saurashtra,
\n\twhich had taken over the administration of Sardargadh Taluka and the
\n\tsaid aspect is apparent from the Sardargadh (Administration of
\n\tProperty) Ordinance, 1950 published in the Government Gazette on
\n\t19.1.1950.  The said ordinance provided for the power of the
\n\tGovernment vide Clause-3 as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“The Manager or the Collector,
\n\tSorath District, as the case may be, shall have, and shall be deemed
\n\talways to have in relation to properties vested in him. Under
\n\tSection 2 all the rights, powers and authority which a full owner
\n\thas or exercises in relation to his own property.”\n<\/p>\n
Merely because in the Schedule
\n\tthere is reference to some of the movable property, it cannot be
\n\tread that the immovable property of the then Sardargadh State would
\n\tnot vest to the Collector of Sorath District of State of Saurashtra.
\n\t If the contention of the respondent is that it was the personal
\n\tproperty of Talukdar or forefather of the respondent, it is for the
\n\tTalukdar and the then Ruler of the Sardargadh State to establish the
\n\tsame and then only such property would get saved from vesting to the
\n\tState of Saurashtra or the Collector of Sorath District of State of
\n\tSaurashtra.  We find that the learned Single Judge has committed
\n\terror in not properly considering the said aspect.\n<\/p>\n
Further as per the provisions of
\n\tSection 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, all land vests to the
\n\tState, unless established that the same is personal property of any
\n\tcitizen or any person.  As per the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue
\n\tCode, if any person is asserting his right in his personal or
\n\tindividual property, he has to raise the dispute and such can be
\n\texamined by the competent authority of the Government and if he
\n\tfails in establishing the title of the property before the competent
\n\tauthority a suit can be instituted before the Civil Court for
\n\tconfirmation of the title or otherwise, and the decision of Civil
\n\tCourt would prevail for the land in question.\n<\/p>\n
The examination of the facts of
\n\tthe present case further shows that the property was in possession
\n\tof the PWD Department of the State of Saurashtra.  It was also shown
\n\tin the record as that of belonging to the State Government.  At that
\n\tstage, if the claim of the respondent was that the City Survey
\n\tRecord was not correctly prepared as showing the property of the
\n\tGovernment, and it was personal property of the then Ruler of State
\n\tof Sardargadh the proper course for the respondent was to file civil
\n\tsuit for establishing the title over the property and in the
\n\tproceedings of maintenance of the entry record or the city survey
\n\trecord, the aspects of title could not have been examined.  The
\n\tobservations made by the lower authority namely as that of the
\n\tDistrict Collector can be read only for the purpose of maintenance
\n\tof the record on City Survey Department and it cannot be read for
\n\texamination of the title of the property either belonging to the
\n\trespondent or otherwise. Unfortunately, the Secretary of the State
\n\tGovernment in revisional jurisdiction, instead of relegating the
\n\tparties to the proceedings before the Civil Court has gone into the
\n\taspects of title in detail and has, by making observation, conferred
\n\tthe title upon the respondent of the property and has divested the
\n\tState from the title of the property, which could be said as beyond
\n\tthe power and jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
It appears to us that the learned
\n\tSingle Judge in all fairness ought to have set aside the
\n\tobservations made by the Secretary of the State Government in
\n\trevisional jurisdiction on the aspects of title and ought to have
\n\trelegated the respondent for filing appropriate civil suit for
\n\testablishing the title, but it appears to us that instead of doing
\n\tso, the learned Single Judge has further examined the title  and
\n\tconfirmed the title upon the respondent in the revenue entry
\n\tproceedings.  Therefore, it can be said that error has been
\n\tcommitted while exercising the power under Article 226<\/a>\/227<\/a> of the
\n\tConstitution of India in the revenue entry proceedings by expressing
\n\tview for the confirmation of the title.\n<\/p>\n
We may record that no observations
\n\thave been made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order,
\n\trelegating parties to resort to appropriate proceedings before the
\n\tCivil Court for establishing the title, therefore, if the
\n\tobservations made by the learned Single Judge on the aspects of
\n\ttitle are allowed to operate, it may result into further
\n\tcomplication of creating a cloud over the right of possession of the
\n\tproperty by the State, which is since independence and, in any case,
\n\tafter taking over of the property of the then Sardargadh State.
\n\tTherefore, we find that it would be just and proper to interfere
\n\twith the order passed by the Secretary of the State Government in
\n\trevisional jurisdiction and its confirmation thereof by the learned
\n\tSingle Judge of this Court and to relegate the respondent to resort
\n\tto appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court for establishing
\n\tthe rights in property if the respondent is contending that the same
\n\tis personal property of the then Ruler or Talukdar of State of
\n\tSardargadh.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the aforesaid
\n\tobservations and discussions, the impugned order passed by the State
\n\tGovernment in revisional jurisdiction as well as its confirmation
\n\tthereof by the learned Single Judge are quashed and set aside, but
\n\twith the further observations and directions that it would be open
\n\tto the respondent to file appropriate civil suit for establishing
\n\tthe title in the property in question and if such remedy is resorted
\n\tto by the respondent before the Civil Court, the revenue record of
\n\tCity Survey Department and\/or the order passed by the District
\n\tCollector in appeal shall not operate as a bar, nor shall be read as
\n\tconclusive and the Civil Court shall be at liberty to examine the
\n\tmatter independently on the basis of the material and the evidence
\n\tproduced before it.  Hence, subject to the aforesaid observations
\n\tand directions, the appeal is allowed.  Considering the facts and
\n\tcircumstances, no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
After the pronouncement of the
\n\torder, Mr.Shah for Mr.Raval, learned Counsel for the respondent
\n\tprayed that the operation be stayed for some time, so as to enable
\n\this client to approach before the higher forum.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the facts and
\n\tcircumstances, we find that when the remedy is already permitted to
\n\tbe resorted to the respondent, no prejudice would be caused by the
\n\tpresent order.  Hence, the said remedy is not granted.\n<\/p>\n
 (Jayant Patel, J.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(S.\n<\/p>\n
R. Brahmbhatt, J.)<\/p>\n
 vinod<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/72\/2000 5\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 72 of 2000 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6421 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT […]<\/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-248780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010 - 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\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-03T06:50:34+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\\\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-03T06:50:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2292,\"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\\\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-03T06:50:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010 - 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\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-03T06:50:34+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\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-03T06:50:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010"},"wordCount":2292,"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\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010","name":"State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-03T06:50:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-abdulhamidkhan-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Abdulhamidkhan on 18 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/248780","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=248780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}