{"id":31918,"date":"2009-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-14T06:10:56","modified_gmt":"2018-10-14T00:40:56","slug":"pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: R. C. Chavan<\/div>\n
                                     1\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                        Writ Petition No.2655 of 1993\n\n    Pandharinath s\/o Vithalrao Awari,\n    aged about 50 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    Cultivator,\n    r\/o Dhamangaon,\n    Post : Waigaon (Gond),\n    Tahsil : Samudrapur,\n    District : Wardha.                        ... Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n             Versus      \n    1. The State of Maharashtra,\n       through Secretary,\n                        \n       Revenue Department,\n       Bombay-32.\n\n    2. Additional Commissioner,\n      \n\n\n       Nagpur Division, Nagpur.\n   \n\n\n\n    3. The Sub-Divisional Officer,\n       Hinganghat,\n       Tahsil Hinganghat,\n       District Wardha.\n\n\n\n\n\n    4. The Tahsildar,\n       Samudrapur,\n       Tahsil : Samudrapur,\n       District Wardha.\n\n\n\n\n\n    5. Gangadhar Raghoba Bhoyar,\n       aged about 42 years,\n       Cultivator,\n       r\/o Dhamangaon,\n       Post : Waigaon (Gond),\n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:30:25 :::\n                                     2\n         Tahsil : Samudrapur,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n         District Wardha.                        ... Respondents<\/pre>\n
    Shri R.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner.
\n    Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
\n    Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for Respondent No.5.\n<\/p>\n
              Coram : R.C. Chavan,
\n              Dated : 9th April, 2009<\/p>\n
    Oral Judgment :\n<\/p>\n
    1.<\/p>\n
                This petition seeks to have the order passed by the<\/p>\n
    Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, on 25-5-1993<\/p>\n
    in Revision No.6\/60-A(6)\/89-90 of Dhamangaon quashed and set<\/p>\n
    aside and a further direction to the authorities to take surplus land<\/p>\n
    from the holding of respondent No.5 Gangadhar Raghoba Bhoyar<\/p>\n
    from whom the petitioner had purchased the land.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          The   Maharashtra       Agricultural    Land        (Ceiling       on<\/p>\n
    Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, “the Ceiling Act”) came into force<\/p>\n
    on 2-10-1975. The petitioner purchased 11.25 acres of land from<\/p>\n
    survey No.55 from respondent No.5 on 26-7-1979. Thus the land<\/p>\n
    had to be included under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act for<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    3<\/span>
\n    computing the total holding of land holder respondent No.5. On<\/p>\n
    8-6-1987, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal determined<\/p>\n
    that 18.81 acres of land was surplus and also possibly held that<\/p>\n
    the land was delimited from survey No.55.           The landlord had<\/p>\n
    challenged the computation of total holding and the surplus land<\/p>\n
    before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by preferring Ceiling<\/p>\n
    Appeal No.47 of 1989. The State also seems to have raised a<\/p>\n
    cross-objection and eventually the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,<\/p>\n
    by its order dated 25-9-1987, held that 22.01 acres of land was to<\/p>\n
    be treated as surplus and directed the Surplus Land Determination<\/p>\n
    Tribunal to take further action to delimit 22.01 acres of land after<\/p>\n
    giving the appellant an opportunity to exercise choice of retention.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        By   a   Jahirnama       or   proclamation     published         on<\/p>\n
    28-3-1990, the petitioner’s land was sought to be taken up as<\/p>\n
    surplus land. The petitioner, therefore, filed a revision before the<\/p>\n
    Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, under Section<\/p>\n
    45(2) of the Ceiling Act, which was rejected by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
    by his impugned order dated 25-5-1993.              This is why the<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                        4<\/span>
\n    petitioner is before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        I have heard Shri R.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
    the petitioner, Shri A.M. Deshpande, learned AGP for respondent<\/p>\n
    Nos.1 to 5, and Shri S.D. Chopde, learned counsel for respondent<\/p>\n
    No.5, owner of the land.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        The learned AGP has also made available for my perusal<\/p>\n
    the record of the proceedings before the Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
    6.        The learned Additional Commissioner in his impugned<\/p>\n
    order has observed that the order of the Surplus Land<\/p>\n
    Determination Tribunal dated 8-6-1987 mentions that the surplus<\/p>\n
    land will be from the possession of the landlord.               Thus till<\/p>\n
    8-6-1987, there was no question of the petitioner having any<\/p>\n
    grievance in respect of the proceedings before the Surplus Land<\/p>\n
    Determination Tribunal, since his land was not to be touched. In<\/p>\n
    the light of this, the observations of the learned Additional<\/p>\n
    Commissioner in his impugned order that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
    aware of the proceedings before the Surplus Land Determination<\/p>\n
    Tribunal and reference to the objection raised by the petitioner on<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                   5<\/span>
\n    9-3-1981 as also petitioner’s presence on 18-2-1981 and<\/p>\n
    16-4-1981 before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal is<\/p>\n
    thoroughly irrelevant. The question as to which land was to be<\/p>\n
    identified as surplus, was not at all required to be decided at that<\/p>\n
    stage without completing computation of total holding of<\/p>\n
    respondent No.5 and determining the extent of surplus land. The<\/p>\n
    presence of the petitioner in the earlier proceedings was irrelevant<\/p>\n
    and need not have influenced the judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
    Additional Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
    7.        After having observed that the order of the Surplus<\/p>\n
    Land Determination Tribunal mentioned that the surplus land will<\/p>\n
    be from the possession of the landlord, the observation of the<\/p>\n
    learned Additional Commissioner that the petitioner had not<\/p>\n
    availed of any opportunity in appeal after the order was passed by<\/p>\n
    the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, is indeed surprising. It<\/p>\n
    has not been shown that any order indicating that the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
    land was to be touched had been passed before the Jahirnama or<\/p>\n
    proclamation dated 28-3-1990 came to be noticed by the<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    6<\/span>
\n    petitioner. This fact has not been contested by filing any return by<\/p>\n
    any of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    8.        In any case, it would not be open for a landholder to opt<\/p>\n
    to keep the lands in his possession intact and ask the ceiling<\/p>\n
    authorities to take over surplus land, which he had already sold.\n<\/p>\n
    The provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of the Ceiling Act have been<\/p>\n
    considered from time to time by this Court. In Keshao Govind<\/p>\n
    Begde v. The State of Maharashtra and others<\/a>, reported at AIR 1976<\/p>\n
    Bombay 78, a similar attempt of the landholder was repelled by<\/p>\n
    holding in para 7 as under :\n<\/p>\n
              “The policy is, therefore, clear. If it is obligatory on the<\/p>\n
              holder to retain the cumbered land with him, it is difficult
\n              to see how the petitioner can insist that the lands which<\/p>\n
              have been sold already should be taken in the first
\n              instance for delimiting the surplus land.         It has to be
\n              noted that though under Section 10, the land will be
\n              taken into consideration after calculating the transferred<\/p>\n
              lands, it does not mean that the transfer is to be entirely
\n              ignored for all purposes. At any rate, it will be extremely
\n              difficult to allow the petitioner to make a choice when he<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
              has already made alienations. It may also be noted that<\/p>\n
              in case the transferred lands are taken up to meet the<\/p>\n
              surplus, the transferees will be entitled to recover the
\n              purchase money from the petitioner and for the refund of
\n              the consideration money which they have paid under the<\/p>\n
              Transfer of Property Act, the property would be under an
\n              encumbrance.     Considered from any point of view, it<\/p>\n
              seems difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Masodkar.
\n              Such inequitable pleas cannot be accepted in a writ<\/p>\n
              petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.                  It,<\/p>\n
              therefore, follows that the order with regard to the
\n              delimiting of this surplus made by the Tribunal is correct
\n              and will have to be maintained.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9.        In Shriram s\/o Jagoji Brahmane v. State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    and others<\/a>, reported at 2007(2) Mh.L.J. 353, I had an occasion to<\/p>\n
    consider the same question and had reached the same conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
    The provisions of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act clearly indicate that<\/p>\n
    the landholder is to lose the property in his possession first and<\/p>\n
    only thereafter the property transferred is required to be taken<\/p>\n
    over as surplus by the State. The right to select the property to be<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    8<\/span>
\n    retained by the landholder recognised in sub-section (2) of Section<\/p>\n
    16 is subject to sub-section (1) of the said Section, which in turn<\/p>\n
    makes the provision subject to the provisions contained in Section<\/p>\n
    10 of the Ceiling Act, with the result that the landholder would<\/p>\n
    have to first give up the property in his possession as surplus<\/p>\n
    before asking the Ceiling Authorities to touch the property<\/p>\n
    transferred.\n<\/p>\n
    10.       The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a<\/p>\n
    judgment in Shankargir Gulabgir Gosavi and another v. State of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra and others, reported at 2005 (1) Bom.C.R. 470,<\/p>\n
    where apart from the provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of the<\/p>\n
    Ceiling Act, this Court had also referred to the provisions of Rule 4<\/p>\n
    of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering Ceiling on<\/p>\n
    Holdings) (Declaration and Taking Possession of Surplus Land)<\/p>\n
    Amendment Rules, 1975 made under the Ceiling Act, which<\/p>\n
    provides for the manner and extent to which land of and in<\/p>\n
    possession of transferees could be deemed surplus land under<\/p>\n
    Section 10(1). It lays down that out of the land transferred and in<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    9<\/span>
\n    possession of transferee, where there is one transferee, then land<\/p>\n
    to the extent of the deficiency shall be deemed to be surplus land.\n<\/p>\n
    This deficiency is the deficiency after using up the lands in<\/p>\n
    possession of a landholder.\n<\/p>\n
    11.        In view of this, the impugned order cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
    It is quashed and set aside. The proclamation dated 28-3-1990 is<\/p>\n
    also quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                          ig           The authorities shall initiate the<\/p>\n
    exercise of delimiting surplus land afresh after first exhausting the<\/p>\n
    lands, which are in possession of the landholder and then touch<\/p>\n
    the lands, which are transferred to the petitioner or others.\n<\/p>\n
    12.        Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to<\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                               JUDGE
\n    Lanjewar<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:25 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2009 Bench: R. C. Chavan 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2655 of 1993 Pandharinath s\/o Vithalrao Awari, aged about 50 years, Cultivator, r\/o Dhamangaon, Post : Waigaon (Gond), Tahsil : Samudrapur, District : Wardha. […]<\/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-31918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 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\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-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=\"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-14T00:40:56+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T00:40:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1390,\"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\\\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T00:40:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 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":"Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 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\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-14T00:40:56+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T00:40:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009"},"wordCount":1390,"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\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009","name":"Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T00:40:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pandharinath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 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\/31918","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=31918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}