{"id":268710,"date":"2009-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-22T10:08:41","modified_gmt":"2015-11-22T04:38:41","slug":"munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: K. K. Tated<\/div>\n
                                 (1)\n\n\n\n\n            FIRST APPEAL NO.577 OF 1997\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                  Date of decision:    24TH MARCH, 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    For approval and signature.\n\n\n    THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    1.    Whether Reporters of Local Papers               }     Yes\n          may be allowed to see the Judgment?             }\n\n    2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not          }     Yes\/No\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n    3.    Whether Their Lordships wish to see             }     No\n\n\n    4.\n                      \n          the fair copy of the Judgment?\n\n          Whether this case involves a substantial\n                                                          }\n\n                                                          }\n          question of law as to the interpretation        }     No\n                     \n          of the Constitution of India, 1950 or           }\n          any Order made thereunder?                      }\n\n    5.    Whether it is to be circulated to the           }     No\n          Civil Judges?                                   }\n      \n\n\n    6.    Whether the case involves an important          }\n          question of law and whether a copy of           }     No\n   \n\n\n\n          the Judgment should be sent to Mumbai,          }\n          Nagpur and Panaji offices?                      }\n\n\n\n\n\n         [A.S. Bhagwat)\n         Personal Assistant to\n         the Honourable Judge.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::\n                               1\n\n\n\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n         FIRST APPEAL NO.577 OF 1997\n                 IN\n        LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.11 OF 1990\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    1) Munjaji s\/o Umaji Ubale,\n       Age-35 years, Occu:Agri.,\n\n    2) Madhav s\/o Umaji Ubale,\n       Age-30 years, Occu:Agri.,\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n    3) Amrat s\/o Umaji Ubale,\n       Age-22 years, Occu:Agri.,\n                     \n    4) Yeshodabai w\/o Manik Kankute,\n       Age-27 years, Occu:Household,\n                    \n    All R\/o Balsa (Kh.),\n    Tq. & Dist-Parbhani.\n                                   .... APPELLANTS.\n\n          VERSUS\n      \n\n\n    1) The State of Maharashtra,\n       Through Collector,\n   \n\n\n\n       Parbhani.\n\n    2) The Special Land Acquisition\n       Officer, M.K.V., Parbhani.\n                                ....    RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                     ...\n\n    Mr.A.M. Dabir Advocate for the Appellants.\n    Mr.S.P. Dound, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1\n    and No.2.\n                      ...\n\n\n\n\n\n            CORAM:   K.K. TATED, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            DATE : 24TH MARCH, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
    1.        Heard     Mr.       Dabir, learned counsel for                the<\/p>\n
    Appellants        and     Mr.    S.P.       Dound, learned         A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
    for Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    2.        The     present First Appeal preferred by                     the<\/p>\n
    original        claimants against the Judgment and award<\/p>\n
    dated 30th August, 1996 passed by IVth Joint Civil<\/p>\n
    Judge,<\/p>\n
    of 1990.\n<\/p>\n
               Senior Division, Parbhani in L.A.R.                      No.11<\/p>\n
    3.        The     undisputed       facts in the present               case<\/p>\n
    are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for<\/p>\n
    short      “S.L.A.O.”)          issued        Notification          under<\/p>\n
    Section     4<\/a>     of the Land Acquisition Act dated                     1st<\/p>\n
    August,     1985        for     acquiring       Appellants’         house<\/p>\n
    property        admeasuring       40.70 sq.      meters and           open<\/p>\n
    area     193.05     sq.         meter, total area         273.05        sq.<\/p>\n
    meter     for Maharashtra Krishi Vidyapith, Parbhani.\n<\/p>\n
    After     following       due     process       of   law,      S.L.A.O.\n<\/p>\n
    declared        award dated 28th March, 1988 and awarded<\/p>\n
    compensation        in     respect       of    acquired      built        up<\/p>\n
    property to the tune of Rs.8172.50 Paisa, cost for<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
    open     plot     Rs.855\/- i.e.              total net valuation             of<\/p>\n
    the     structure        Rs.9027.50          Paisa.      The      S.L.A.O.\n<\/p>\n
    also awarded a sum of Rs.2708.25 Paisa towards 30%<\/p>\n
    solatium        payable under Section 23(2)<\/a> of the                       Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition           Act.    The S.L.A.O.        also awarded             12%<\/p>\n
    component        payable          under Section 23<\/a> (1A)             of     the<\/p>\n
    Land     Acquisition          Act<\/a>     for the      period       from       1st<\/p>\n
    August,        1985     till 30th January, 1988, a                  sum      of<\/p>\n
    Rs.2708.25        Paisa.           In all the      S.L.A.O.           passed<\/p>\n
    award        for a sum of Rs.14,494\/-.                Being     aggrieved<\/p>\n
    by     the     said<\/p>\n
                            award passed by the<\/p>\n
    Appellants\/ original claimants preferred Reference
\n                                                            S.L.A.O.,          the<\/p>\n
    under Section 18<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act dated<\/p>\n
    6th     May,     1988 claiming enhanced compensation                         to<\/p>\n
    the     tune     of Rs.19,933\/- along with 30%                    solatium<\/p>\n
    and     12% component over the said amount.                       The said<\/p>\n
    Reference        came        to    be decided by        the     Reference<\/p>\n
    Court        on 30th August, 1996.             The Reference             Court<\/p>\n
    enhanced         compensation,               solatium,         additional<\/p>\n
    compensation             and         interest          amounting             to<\/p>\n
    Rs.10,628\/-.           Being aggrieved by the said Judgment<\/p>\n
    and     award     dated 30th August, 1996 passed by                        the<\/p>\n
    Reference         Court,           the        Appellants\/         original<\/p>\n
    claimants preferred present Appeal in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.        Learned          counsel        Mr.    Dabir        appearing           on<\/p>\n
    behalf     of        the      Appellants\/            original        claimants<\/p>\n
    submitted that the Reference Court erred in coming<\/p>\n
    to     the conclusion that the claimants are entitled<\/p>\n
    to compensation in respect of acquired land to the<\/p>\n
    tune     of     Rs.10,628\/- only.               He further           submitted<\/p>\n
    that     the        Reference Court should have                    considered<\/p>\n
    that     the Respondent State actually acquired 75.37<\/p>\n
    sq.      meters           constructed         area      in      the      present<\/p>\n
    matter.         Inspite        of    that       the     Reference           Court<\/p>\n
    awarded<\/p>\n
    meter
\n                   compensation<\/p>\n
              constructed
\n                                ig area
\n                                         in       respect<\/p>\n
                                               only.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             of<\/p>\n
                                                            Learned
\n                                                                       40.70<\/p>\n
                                                                             counsel
\n                                                                                    sq.\n<\/p>\n
    further        submitted that the Reference Court                           erred<\/p>\n
    in discarding the valuer’s evidence as well as the<\/p>\n
    report     submitted          by     the valuer          in       respect         of<\/p>\n
    acquired        property.         Learned counsel for Appellant<\/p>\n
    submitted that the Reference Court at least should<\/p>\n
    have     granted compensation in respect of                            property<\/p>\n
    to the tune of Rs.28,105.78 Paisa as valued by the<\/p>\n
    Architect           in     his valuation report, which                     is     on<\/p>\n
    record     being Exhibit 24.                  Learned counsel further<\/p>\n
    submitted           that    the Reference Court erred in                        not<\/p>\n
    awarding        a        sum of Rs.10,000\/-           towards          shifting<\/p>\n
    charges        because       of     the       acquired        property          was<\/p>\n
    residential premises.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    5.       On    the      other     hand    learned       A.G.P.         Mr.<\/p>\n
    Dound    appearing       on      behalf    of    the     Respondents<\/p>\n
    vehemently         opposed    the present First Appeal                 for<\/p>\n
    enhancement        of   compensation.       He submitted             that<\/p>\n
    the      Reference       Court      rightly      considered            the<\/p>\n
    documentary          evidence      on     record       and      awarded<\/p>\n
    reasonable         compensation     in respect         of     acquired<\/p>\n
    property      as     on the date of issuing             Notification<\/p>\n
    under    Section 4<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act dated<\/p>\n
    1st     August, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
    Appellants
\n                             ig   He further submitted that<\/p>\n
                       failed to produce any cogent               evidence
\n                                                                           the<\/p>\n
    for     enhancing compensation in respect of acquired<\/p>\n
    property.          Learned      A.G.P.    further      pointed         out<\/p>\n
    that    the    Appellants in the present First                    Appeal<\/p>\n
    filed Foot Note as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “Foot Note<\/p>\n
             Appellant claimed                      Rs.19,933\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Reference Court awarded                Rs.12000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    ————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
             Claim regarding                         Rs.7,933\/-\n\n\n\n             Hence the Appellant is\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>\n                                              6<\/span>\n\n\n\n               entitled to                                Rs.7,933\/- \"\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n    6.         Learned         A.G.P.    further submitted that the\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    present          Appeal is preferred by the Appellants for\n\n    enhanced          compensation       of        Rs.7,933\/-        only       and\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n    therefore          there     is no question of enhancing                    the\n\n<\/pre>\n
    compensation as per the valuation report submitted<\/p>\n
    by    the        valuer     Mr.      S.W.       Nayak.        He     further<\/p>\n
    submitted          that     the Appellants         neither         disputed<\/p>\n
    acquired<\/p>\n
    18    of     the<\/p>\n
                      area in their application under<\/p>\n
                         Land Acquisition Act<\/a> nor                 raised
\n                                                                         Section<\/p>\n
                                                                                any<\/p>\n
    ground       in     the     present          Appeal    for     the        same.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,          the Appellants cannot agitate the said<\/p>\n
    issue       in     the     present Appeal.         On the        basis        of<\/p>\n
    these       submissions, learned A.G.P.                 submitted that<\/p>\n
    the     present       Appeal        to    be    dismissed        with       the<\/p>\n
    exemplary cost.\n<\/p>\n
    7.         Learned         counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    Appellants \/ original claimants submitted that the<\/p>\n
    Reference          Court     erred in not awarding a                 sum      of<\/p>\n
    Rs.10,000\/-           towards       shifting          charges        as     the<\/p>\n
    acquired          property     was residential premises.                      He<\/p>\n
    further          submitted that the Reference Court                     ought<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
    to    have      awarded      a sum     of    Rs.10,000\/-        towards<\/p>\n
    shifting        charges      to   the claimants.         If     we     see<\/p>\n
    evidence        of claimant himself at Exhibit 20,                   then<\/p>\n
    it    is     clear that claimant nowhere stated in                     his<\/p>\n
    deposition that they incurred a sum of Rs.10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
    towards      the shifting charges.            Not only that when<\/p>\n
    the     Appellants\/         original        claimants         preferred<\/p>\n
    Reference under Section 18<\/a> of the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Act     dated       6th     May, 1988, Appellants         failed         to<\/p>\n
    claim      said      sum    of      Rs.10,000\/-     for        shifting<\/p>\n
    charges.\n<\/p>\n
                    Prayer in the Reference under Section 18<\/a><\/p>\n
    of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
               “It is therefore, prayed that the petition
\n               may   kindly  be   allowed and    enhanced
\n               compensation to the tune of Rs.19933\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               along with 30% solatium and interest @ 12%
\n               p.a.   over above amount from the date of<\/p>\n
               award till the date of realisation of
\n               amount with cost may be granted to the
\n               petitioners.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.         With     the     help of learned counsel for                the<\/p>\n
    parties,        I    have    gone    through      the     Record       and<\/p>\n
    Proceedings         of the present case.          Learned counsel<\/p>\n
    for the Appellants took me through Exhibit 28 i.e.<\/p>\n
    deposition          of witness No.1 for Appellant –                Umaji<\/p>\n
    Ubale.       In      his     evidence, the      claimant        claimed<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
    enhanced        compensation of acquired property to the<\/p>\n
    tune     of     Rs.19,933\/-.            The said       witness           nowhere<\/p>\n
    stated     about           the     area        of    acquired         property.\n<\/p>\n
    Though the learned counsel for Appellants disputed<\/p>\n
    that     the     Respondent actually acquired 75.37                             sq.<\/p>\n
    meters     constructed             property of claimants in                     the<\/p>\n
    present        case        but these facts were not stated                        by<\/p>\n
    the      claimant            himself            in     his        deposition.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,            it     is     difficult          to       accept          the<\/p>\n
    contention        of learned counsel for the Appellants\/<\/p>\n
    original<\/p>\n
    75.37 sq.
\n                    claimants
\n                                ig     that the Respondent<\/p>\n
                     meters constructed area of Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           acquired<\/p>\n
    9.        Thus,       it         is clear that even in                Reference<\/p>\n
    under     Section          18      of the       Land    Acquisition             Act<\/p>\n
    Appellants        claimed          only Rs.19,933\/- towards                     the<\/p>\n
    house     property.               The     calculation           for      sum      of<\/p>\n
    Rs.19,933\/-           given by the Appellants in Para 8                           of<\/p>\n
    their     Application             under Section 18<\/a> of                the      Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition Act, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
              “(8)    That, even as per valuation of the<\/p>\n
              Architect,   cost of    the    construction\/
\n              building is more than Rs.28105\/- and so the
\n              Petitioners are claiming      Rs.28105\/- as
\n              enhanced compensation and after excluding
\n              the amount awarded by       the SLAO,    net
\n              compensation claimed under this petition<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
             comes to Rs.19933.00\/-”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10.      It     is thus clear from the above                       mentioned<\/p>\n
    facts    that the Appellants never claimed a sum                                of<\/p>\n
    Rs.10,000\/-          towards shifting charges.                   Therefore,<\/p>\n
    the      Reference          Court        rightly          rejected\/           not<\/p>\n
    considered          the    Appellants request for a                    sum      of<\/p>\n
    Rs.10,000\/- towards the shifting charges.\n<\/p>\n
    11.      Learned          counsel      for      Appellants           took       me<\/p>\n
    No.2 for the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
    through Exhibit 23, which is deposition of witness<\/p>\n
                                           Architect Mr.             Subhash W.\n<\/p>\n
    Nayak deposed as expert for the claimants.                               In his<\/p>\n
    evidence       he     stated that he himself                  visited         the<\/p>\n
    suit     property in the month of July, 1985 and took<\/p>\n
    measurement          of    the house and made the                  valuation<\/p>\n
    report     accordingly.          He produced copy of map                      and<\/p>\n
    valuation       report.        He stated that, in his opinion<\/p>\n
    the     market value of the house property should                               be<\/p>\n
    Rs.28,105.78          Paisa.        He       stated that         the      house<\/p>\n
    property       contains        three         rooms    in        stone        work<\/p>\n
    covering       in     G.I.C.        roofing and           one      hut.         He<\/p>\n
    stated     that       the built up area              is     approximately<\/p>\n
    75.37    sq.        meters.     It is to be noted that at the<\/p>\n
    time of giving deposition, he has not produced the<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
    material          on        the basis of which he          prepared          the<\/p>\n
    valuation          report, as well as note prepared by him<\/p>\n
    at     the     time          of    carry   out    survey.         In       cross<\/p>\n
    examination,                he specifically admitted that he has<\/p>\n
    not     undergone             any special training as a               valuer.\n<\/p>\n
    If the expert fails to produce the material on the<\/p>\n
    basis        of which he has prepared valuation                       report,<\/p>\n
    then         the       said       valuation      report        cannot          be<\/p>\n
    considered             in     evidence.     The Apex Court            in     the<\/p>\n
    matter       of     Special Land Acquisition                 Officer         and<\/p>\n
    another<\/p>\n
    reported
\n                  vs.\n<\/p>\n
                   in 1995 Supp.<\/p>\n
\n                                 \n                                Sidappa Omanna Tumari\n\n                                               (2) Supreme Court\n                                                                 and      others,\n\n                                                                            Cases,\n                                \n    Page    168 held that report of expert can be                            acted\n\n    upon    by     the          Court if relevant factual               data       or\n\n    material       which constituted basis of the report is\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    also produced and the same is proved to be genuine<\/p>\n
    and     reliable and the method adopted by the expert<\/p>\n
    found    to        be recognised and correct.                  Para 17         of<\/p>\n
    the said Judgment reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “17.    Therefore, when a report of an
\n             expert is got produced by a claimant before<\/p>\n
             the Court giving the market value of the
\n             acquired lands, the court may choose to act
\n             upon such report for determination of the
\n             amount of compensation payable for the
\n             acquire lands, if the data or the material
\n             on the basis of which such report is based<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
             is produced before the     court and the
\n             authenticity of the same is made good and
\n             the method of valuation adopted therein is
\n             correct.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12.      In     view      of      these facts I hold     that       the<\/p>\n
    Reference       Court rightly disbelieved the              evidence<\/p>\n
    as well as valuation report prepared by the valuer<\/p>\n
    Mr.     S.W.    Nayak.         Therefore, there is no merit in<\/p>\n
    the     contentions raised by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
    the     Appellants        that the Reference      Court        should<\/p>\n
    have     considered the valuation report prepared                     by<\/p>\n
    the     valuer Mr.<\/p>\n
                               S.W.     Nayak for fixing the market<\/p>\n
    value of the acquired property.\n<\/p>\n
    13.      The        Reference       Court    considering            the<\/p>\n
    material       on    record came to the        conclusion         that<\/p>\n
    market     value         of the acquired property should              be<\/p>\n
    Rs.12,000\/-         on    the date of issuing       Notification<\/p>\n
    under     Section 4<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act.                      It<\/p>\n
    is     a principle for fixing the market value of the<\/p>\n
    acquired land that Court has to do some guess work<\/p>\n
    on     the basis of material produced before it.                      It<\/p>\n
    is     not possible that at the time of fixing market<\/p>\n
    value     of    the acquired land, the Court has to                   do<\/p>\n
    mathematical calculations only.              It is the duty of<\/p>\n
    the Court to see plus and minus factors in respect<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
    of acquired property.\n<\/p>\n
    14.      In     view    of     the      above        facts         and<\/p>\n
    circumstances     I am of the opinion that it is                   not<\/p>\n
    necessary to interfere with the Judgment and award<\/p>\n
    passed    by the Reference Court dated 30th                  August,<\/p>\n
    1996.    Hence the present First Appeal is liable to<\/p>\n
    be dismissed with no order as to the costs.                    hence<\/p>\n
    the Order:\n<\/p>\n
                        ig  O R D E R<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (i)      First       Appeal    No.577          of       1997<\/p>\n
             preferred     by    the     Appellants\/          original<\/p>\n
             claimants     against     the Judgment and            award<\/p>\n
             passed   by    the Reference Court dated                30th<\/p>\n
             August, 1996 is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (ii)     There      shall be no order as to               the<\/p>\n
             costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              [K.K. TATED]<\/p>\n
                                                     JUDGE.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>
\n                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
    asb\/u\/fa577.97<\/p>\n
                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:23 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009 Bench: K. K. Tated (1) FIRST APPEAL NO.577 OF 1997 Date of decision: 24TH MARCH, 2009 For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment? } […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMunjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009 - 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\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-22T04:38:41+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-22T04:38:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1834,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-22T04:38:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009 - 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\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-22T04:38:41+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-22T04:38:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009"},"wordCount":1834,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009","name":"Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-22T04:38:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munjaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Munjaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/268710","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=268710"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268710\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}