{"id":269890,"date":"2011-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011"},"modified":"2017-06-07T09:07:37","modified_gmt":"2017-06-07T03:37:37","slug":"soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR\n\n\n                      Writ Petition No : 3503 of 2003\n\n                                       Soneju\n                                     - V\/s      -\n                             State of MP and others.\n\n\nPresent:              Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.\n\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n              Shri Mrigendra Singh, counsel for the petitioner.\n\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n        Whether approved for reporting:                              Yes \/ No.\n\n                                    ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                                    22\/07\/2011<\/p>\n<p>              Challenging the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and<br \/>\nthe Commissioner, Sagar Division in the matter of interfering with an<br \/>\norder passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tikamgarh on 27.1.1976 &#8211;<br \/>\nAnnexure P\/2, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.<br \/>\n2-            Facts in brief indicate that petitioner was owner of 66.22<br \/>\nAcres of agricultural land. According to the petitioner, the said land was<br \/>\nowned by him even before the MP Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act,<br \/>\n1960 came into force and the cut-off date fixed under the Act was<br \/>\n1.1.1971. According to the petitioner apart from the aforesaid land, he<br \/>\nalso became owner of 51.91 Acres of land which came to him after death<br \/>\nof his aunt &#8211; one Smt. Badi Dulaiya, in the year 1967. Accordingly, it is<br \/>\nstated that prior to 1.1.1971 petitioner owned 119.33 Acres of land. Out<br \/>\nof this land petitioner is alleged to have sold 31.88 Acres of land to<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 in the year 1968 and it is the case of the petitioner that<br \/>\nin the year 1968 possession of this land was handed over to respondent<br \/>\nNo.2. Part consideration was also taken, but the formality of executing<br \/>\nthe registered sale-deed was done only in the year 1972 i.e&#8230; after the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>cut-off date 1.1.1971. It is the case of the petitioner that for all practical<br \/>\npurposes the sale of this land to respondent No.2 was affected in the year<br \/>\n1968 and the possession was also handed over in the year 1968,<br \/>\ntherefore, the transaction was valid.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">3-           Similarly, petitioner is alleged to have transferred 28.81<br \/>\nAcres of land by way of a Gift Deed, said to have been executed in<br \/>\nfavour of his mother namely Smt. Phoolan Dulaiya. According to the<br \/>\npetitioner, this transaction also took place much before the cut-off date<br \/>\n1.1.1971. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid two<br \/>\nsales made, the land held by the petitioner was within the permissible<br \/>\nlimit and, therefore, the MP Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as &#8216;Act of 1960&#8217;) would have no application.<br \/>\nInspite thereof, when respondent No.3 &#8211; the competent authority, issued<br \/>\nnotice to the petitioner under section 4, petitioner appeared and justified<br \/>\nhis holding in the manner as indicated hereinabove, examined himself<br \/>\nand certain witnesses and on the basis of the averments made, it is stated<br \/>\nthat respondent No.3 accepted the contention of the petitioner and<br \/>\ndropped the proceedings initiated under section 4 of the Act of 1960 on<br \/>\n27.1.1976 &#8211; vide Annexure P\/2. However, Collector Tikamgarh finding<br \/>\nthe order of the SDO to be not in accordance to law, instead of filing an<br \/>\nappeal referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner for taking up<br \/>\nthe issue under suo motu revision by exercising the powers under section\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">42. The Additional Commissioner refused to exercise this power vide<br \/>\nAnnexure P\/3 on 11.7.1989, but on an order passed by the Board of<br \/>\nRevenue on 3.3.1983, the matter was remanded back to the<br \/>\nCommissioner and the Commissioner vide order-dated 11.7.1989<br \/>\nquashed the order of the SDO, holding that the transaction allegedly<br \/>\nmade by the petitioner with respondent No.2 and his mother are not<br \/>\nproved and, therefore, declared certain land as surplus under the Ceiling<br \/>\nAct. Aggrieved thereof petitioner preferred further revision petition and<br \/>\nreview before the Board of Revenue and the same having been dismissed<br \/>\non 1.12.1989 and 6.5.2003 &#8211; vide Annexures P\/5 and P\/6, petitioner is<br \/>\nbefore this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">4-           During the course of hearing, the only argument advanced<br \/>\nby learned counsel for the petitioner was that when an order is passed<br \/>\nunder section 4 of the Act of 1960, the aggrieved person has to file an<br \/>\nappeal under section 3 and the powers of suo motu revision under<br \/>\nsection 42 cannot be exercised when no appeal is filed as provided for in<br \/>\nthe Act. Accordingly, placing reliance on the second proviso to section<br \/>\n42, and the provision of appeal contained in sub-section (4) of section 3,<br \/>\nit is argued that the powers of suo motu revision exercised by the<br \/>\nAdditional Commissioner is illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">5-           From the facts that have come on record, it is clear that on<br \/>\nthe merits of the case, admittedly petitioner was holding land in excess<br \/>\nof the permissible limit under the Act of 1960. However, it was the case<br \/>\nof the petitioner that 31.88 Acres of land was sold by him to respondent<br \/>\nNo.2, in the year 1968, but the sale deed was executed in the year 1972,<br \/>\nand further 28.81 Acres of land was gifted by him to his mother. Even<br \/>\nthough the SDO accepted the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner in<br \/>\nthe order-dated 27.1.1976 &#8211; Annexure P\/2, but when the matter was<br \/>\nreconsidered by the Additional Commissioner in his order-dated<br \/>\n19.12.1988 &#8211; Annexure P\/4 and again by the Board of Revenue on<br \/>\n1.12.1989 vide Annexure P\/5, the aforesaid transaction was found to be<br \/>\nnothing but an illegal one to avoid liability under the Act of 1960. Both<br \/>\nthe authorities have recorded concurrent finding that the petitioner has<br \/>\nmiserably failed to prove these transactions and the contention of the<br \/>\npetitioner that even though he had sold the land in the year 1968 but the<br \/>\nformality for executing the sale-deed was undertaken in the year 1972,<br \/>\nwas found to be incorrect and the finding recorded is that the<br \/>\ntransactions took place after the appointed date i.e&#8230;. 1.1.1971. During<br \/>\nthe course of hearing of this writ petition, nothing was pointed out to this<br \/>\nCourt as to how and on what ground the aforesaid finding concurrently<br \/>\narrived at by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue is found to be<br \/>\nillegal. The only ground raised is that the Commissioner could not<br \/>\nexercise the power of suo motu revision. If the orders passed in this<br \/>\nregard are taken note, it would be seen that initially when the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Commissioner refused to exercise the powers of suo motu revision, the<br \/>\nCommissioner did so on the basis of certain orders passed by a Revenue<br \/>\nCourt, as is evident from Annexure P\/3 dated 11.7.1980, but when the<br \/>\nmatter was considered by the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue<br \/>\non 3.3.1983 &#8211; vide Annexure P\/7, found that a Bench of this Court in<br \/>\nM.P.No.95\/1977 &#8211; Ramchandra Ram Vs. Competent Authority,<br \/>\nTikamgarh, has held that a revision before the Commissioner was<br \/>\nmaintainable and, therefore, the matter was remanded back to the<br \/>\nAdditional Commissioner. This order-dated 3.3.1983 was never<br \/>\nchallenged by the petitioner. The petitioner did not at that point of time<br \/>\nassail the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner in exercising the<br \/>\npowers of suo motu revision nor did he challenge the order-dated<br \/>\n3.3.1983, passed by the Additional Commissioner. Even before this<br \/>\nCourt, this order of remand dated 3.3.1093 is not challenged. On the<br \/>\ncontrary in the body of the petition, it is stated that this order is not<br \/>\navailable with the petitioner and, therefore, he is not filing the same. It<br \/>\nwas only filed after a period of two years of filing the writ petition on<br \/>\n27.7.2005, vide I.A.No.6393\/2005. When the Board of Revenue found<br \/>\nthat the Commissioner could entertain the powers of revision and when<br \/>\nthe revision was being considered by the Commissioner and when the<br \/>\nproceedings were held before the Commissioner which culminated in<br \/>\npassing of the order-dated 19.12.1988 &#8211; Annexure P\/4, petitioner did not<br \/>\nchallenge the same, but participated in the revision proceedings without<br \/>\nany objection. That being so, now after having submitted to the<br \/>\njurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner, petitioner cannot now raise<br \/>\nthe ground before this Court. That apart, when the matter was<br \/>\nadjudicated before the Board of Revenue, a perusal of the order passed<br \/>\nby the Board vide Annexure P\/5 on 1.12.1989 indicates that the Board of<br \/>\nRevenue has taken note of the order passed earlier on 3.3.1983 and the<br \/>\norder of the High Court in Writ Petition No.95\/1977 &#8211; Ramchandra Ram<br \/>\nVs. Competent Authority, and there is nothing in the order of Board of<br \/>\nRevenue that the petitioner has ever raised the question of jurisdiction of<br \/>\nthe Additional Commissioner to exercise the powers of revision.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">Nothing is pointed out to this Court during the course of hearing to<br \/>\nindicate as to whether any such objection was raised when the<br \/>\nproceedings were pending before the Board of Revenue in Revision<br \/>\nNo.158-A\/90\/(V-3)\/87-88. Once the petitioner chose not to challenge he<br \/>\norder of remand made by the Board of Revenue on 3.3.1983 and when<br \/>\nthe petitioner submitted to the revisional jurisdiction of the<br \/>\nCommissioner, now petitioner cannot be permitted to take a turn around<br \/>\nand assail the jurisdiction of the authority on the grounds raised,<br \/>\nparticularly when the concurrent findings available on record is with<br \/>\nregard to the fact that petitioner was holding land in excess of the ceiling<br \/>\nlimit and his contention that he had transferred the land before cut-off<br \/>\ndate i.e&#8230; 1.1.1971 is found to be incorrect by all the authorities.<br \/>\n6-            Taking note of all these circumstances, this Court does not<br \/>\nfind any ground to interfere in the matter, now at the instance of the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">7-            Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.\n\n\n\n                                            ( RAJENDRA MENON )\n                                                   JUDGE\nAks\/-\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No : 3503 of 2003 Soneju &#8211; V\/s &#8211; State of MP and others. Present: Hon&#8217;ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; Shri Mrigendra Singh, counsel for the petitioner. &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-07T03:37:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T03:37:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1483,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T03:37:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-07T03:37:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T03:37:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011"},"wordCount":1483,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011","name":"Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T03:37:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/soneju-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-22-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Soneju vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 22 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269890","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=269890"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269890\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}