{"id":252270,"date":"2008-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-12-04T00:48:10","modified_gmt":"2017-12-03T19:18:10","slug":"maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/588220\/2000\t 13\/ 13\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. 5882 of 2000\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\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\nMAGANBHAI\nGOVANBHAI PATEL VILLAGE ORMA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT, THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPTT & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDHIRENDRA MEHTA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR DIPEN DESAI, Assistant Government Pleader\nfor Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :\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 K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner has filed
\n\tthis petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
\n\tIndia challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the
\n\timpugned judgment and order dated 1.7.1999 and 14.10.1999 passed by
\n\tthe learned Member, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal
\n\tNo.TEN.A.S.3\/1999 and Restoration Application No.TEN.D.S.8\/1999
\n\trespectively.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court has issued
\n\tnotice on 21.6.2000 and petition was admitted on 18.10.2000. On
\n\tbehalf of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 learned Assistant Government
\n\tPleader appeared and affidavit-in-reply is filed by Dy. Collector,
\n\tOlpad, Surat on 30.10.2000.  Despite service of notice and rule
\n\tnobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe brief facts giving
\n\trise to the present petition are that the petitioner’s grand-
\n\tfather, namely, Shri Premabhai Dhanabhai was the tenant over the
\n\tland bearing Survey No.263 admeasuring 2 acres and 16 guntha
\n\tsituated in Orma.  By virtue of will executed by the said Premabhai
\n\tDhanabhai, who died on 17.1.1987, the name of the petitioner was
\n\tentered into the revenue record vide mutation Entry No.250 and as
\n\tsuch the petitioner was in occupation and possession of the said
\n\tland bearing Survey No.263 situated in village Orma, which was the
\n\tInam village under the provisions of the Act.  On abolition of the
\n\tInam of the Inamdar, the proceedings were initiated by the
\n\trespondent No.2 herein for the publication of the names of the
\n\toccupiers over the agricultural lands in the Inam village and the
\n\tobjections were called for under the public notice dated 15.2.1997.
\n\tThe respondent No.3 raised his objections in the writing under
\n\tapplication dated 15.6.1997.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is also the case of
\n\tthe petitioner that he is paying the land revenue for the said land
\n\tbearing Survey No.263 situated in village Orma.  His name was
\n\talready shown in the revenue records as occupiers while the name of
\n\tthe respondent No.3 has not been recorded anywhere in the revenue
\n\trecords and as such,  he has no right, title or interest in the land
\n\tin question. However, the respondent No.2 vide his order dated
\n\t30.7.1998 declared and held that the mutation in the name of the
\n\tpetitioner was against the provision of the Act and without consent
\n\tof the Inamdar, therefore he ordered the land in question to be
\n\tvested in the Government and further directed the Mamlatdar to
\n\tinitiate proceedings under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and
\n\tAgricultural Lands Act. The respondent No.2 without having
\n\tjurisdiction to decide the matter under the Tenancy Act acted beyond
\n\tthe scope of his power under the Act and passed the order on
\n\t30.7.1998.\n<\/p>\n
\tBeing aggrieved by the
\n\tsaid order of the Dy. Collector, the petitioner preferred an Appeal
\n\tunder the provisions of the Act before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
\n\tbeing Appeal No.TEN.A.S. 3\/1999 and also prayed for interim stay.
\n\tThe petitioner had also filed a separate application for condonation
\n\tof delay in filing the said appeal.  The learned Member of Gujarat
\n\tRevenue Tribunal rejected the said application for condonation of
\n\tdelay.  The learned Member of Tribunal rejected the delay
\n\tcondonation application on preliminary hearing at preliminary stage
\n\tand did not entertain the appeal as the delay was not ordered to be
\n\tcondoned.  The petitioner’s advocate was not present at the time of
\n\thearing of the preliminary hearing of the appeal on the question of
\n\tcondonation of delay.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn coming to know of the
\n\torder dated 1.7.1999, after seeking legal advice he filed a
\n\tRestoration Application No.TEN.D.S. 8\/1999   before the learned
\n\tMember of Tribunal,  since the order dated 1.7.1999 was passed
\n\twithout hearing the petitioner or his advocate.  The said
\n\tapplication was also rejected and not entertained on the ground that
\n\tthe said restoration application was not admissible under Regulation
\n\t20 as main appeal was not dismissed for default.\n<\/p>\n
\tBeing aggrieved by the
\n\ttwo orders passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed present
\n\tpetition before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Dhirendra Mehta,
\n\tlearned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the
\n\tpetitioner being the agriculturist residing in remote rural area and
\n\talso for the ignorance of law, could not avail of the remedy of
\n\tappeal immediately and on receipt of the legal advise when the
\n\tappeal was filed it was delayed by about 137 days.  He has further
\n\tsubmitted that there is settled legal position that a meritorious
\n\tcase of the petitioner should not be thrown at the threshold merely
\n\ton technicalities and it is specially when the person residing in
\n\tthe remote rural area is not expected to be well-versed of the
\n\tprovisions of law.  He has further submitted that the appeal
\n\tpreferred by the petitioner on the important issue with regard to
\n\tthe jurisdiction of the Dy. Collector and the finding given by him
\n\tis required to be considered by the Tribunal.  He has further
\n\tsubmitted that the delay condonation application was decided by the
\n\tTribunal in absence of the petitioner and his advocate and hence the
\n\tTribunal ought to have given the opportunity to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Mehta relied on the
\n\tdecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  Ram
\n\tSumiran and others Vs. D.D.C. and others, reported in AIR 1985 SC
\n\t606, wherein while setting aside the abatement and
\n\tpermitting to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on
\n\trecord, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the appellants are
\n\tadmittedly from the rural area and in a country like ours where
\n\tthere is so much poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, it would not be
\n\tfair to presume that everyone knows that on death of a respondent,
\n\tthe legal representatives have to be brought on record within a
\n\tcertain time. The ends of justice require that the application for
\n\tbringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5
\n\tshould have been granted. These observations are equally applicable
\n\tto the present case while considering the delay condonation
\n\tapplication.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Mehta further relied
\n\ton the decision of this Court in the case of  Bhikhabhai
\n\tMavjibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in  1994(1) GLR 151,
\n\twherein it is held that this Court has time and again emphasised
\n\tthat Courts dealing with delay condonation application should adopt
\n\ta liberal approach and not a hyper technical one.  The landmark
\n\truling on the point is in the case of Karim Abdulla Vs. Bai Hoorbai,
\n\t1975 GLR 835.  The sum and substance of that ruling is that, unless
\n\tthe applicant making the application for condonation of delay is
\n\tguilty of gross unexplained delay or is charged with deliberate
\n\tdelay with some ulterior motive, the application for condonation of
\n\tdelay should normally and ordinarily be accepted.  This Court has in
\n\tterms held that substantial justice lies in deciding the matter on
\n\tmerits rather than disposing it of on technicalities.  The Court
\n\tfurther held that villagers are often found quite gulliable and
\n\tpoverty-stricken.  They are
\n\toften taken in by what is dished out to them. For them at times the
\n\torder passed by the competent authority is not worth more than a
\n\tpiece of paper in absence of any proper advice.  It is too much to
\n\texpect from them knowledge of intricacies of law.  In the present
\n\tcase also the petitioner was residing in a very remote area and has
\n\tno knowledge but when he came to know that the land in question is
\n\tto be entered into revenue records in the name of the Government, he
\n\timmediately rushed for legal advice and filed appeal before the
\n\tTribunal.  He has further submitted that the order passed by the Dy.
\n\tCollector is not tenable at law and the same is without
\n\tjurisdiction.  The Tribunal should have, therefore, condoned the
\n\tdelay and decided the appeal on merits.\n<\/p>\n
\t  An affidavit-in-reply
\n\tis filed by the Dy. Collector.  Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Assistant
\n\tGovernment Pleader has submitted that there was no proper ground in
\n\tthe delay condonation application therefore the Tribunal has rightly
\n\trejected the delay condonation application. The appeal could not be
\n\trestored because the Tribunal has decided the delay condonation
\n\tapplication on its own merit and that application was not rejected
\n\tfor want of prosecution.  He has, therefore, submitted that no
\n\tinterference is called for in the order passed by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Having heard learned
\n\tadvocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
\n\tGovernment Pleader appearing for the Revenue and having considered
\n\tthe submissions made in the petition as well as authorities cited
\n\tbefore the Court, the Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not
\n\tproperly considered the grounds urged by the petitioner for
\n\tcondonation of delay.  The Tribunal has proceeded only on the
\n\tfooting that the petitioner could not be said to be illiterate
\n\tperson as he has filed Vakalatnama.  However, reasons given by the
\n\tpetitioner for condonation of delay in his delay condonation
\n\tapplication have not at all been considered. Even otherwise, delay
\n\tcondonation application was decided by the Tribunal without hearing
\n\tthe petitioner as well as petitioner’s advocate.  It is true that
\n\ttwo or three opportunities were given to the petitioner.  However,
\n\ttime was sought on the ground of ill-health of the petitioner’s
\n\tadvocate and ultimately the delay condonation application was
\n\tdecided in absence of the petitioner’s advocate.  Be that as it may,
\n\tthe Court is of the view that this is not the case where the appeal
\n\tof the petitioner can be thrown out at the very threshold.  The
\n\tdelay has been properly explained by the petitioner and the
\n\tpetitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal
\n\tin time.   The legal position is also well settled on this issue and
\n\tthe two judgments discussed above squarely cover the case of the
\n\tpetitioner.  Considering the overall view of the matter this Court
\n\tis satisfied that the petition deserves to be allowed and
\n\taccordingly it is allowed.  Rule is made absolute without any order
\n\tas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Since the matter is
\n\tvery old the Tribunal is directed to decide the main appeal as
\n\texpeditiously as possible, preferably within the period of six
\n\tmonths from the date of receipt of writ or receipt of certified copy
\n\tof this order, which ever is earlier.  While deciding the appeal
\n\tadequate opportunities should be given to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                                  (K.\n<\/p>\n
A. PUJ, J.)<\/p>\n
kks<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/588220\/2000 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5882 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed […]<\/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-252270","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-03T19:18:10+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-03T19:18:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1689,\"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\\\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-03T19:18:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-03T19:18:10+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-03T19:18:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008"},"wordCount":1689,"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\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008","name":"Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-03T19:18:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-state-on-10-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maganbhai vs State on 10 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252270","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=252270"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252270\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}