{"id":36187,"date":"2010-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-12T11:16:43","modified_gmt":"2016-06-12T05:46:43","slug":"first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: F.M. Reis<\/div>\n
                                       ( 1 )\n\n\n            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                     FIRST APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2010\n\n    APPELLANT :-         Vidarbha   Irrigation   Development   Corporation, \n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                         Through   its   Executive   Engineer,   Minor   Irrigation \n                         Division No.2, Taq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana.  \n\n                                    -Versus-\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    RESPONDENTS :-   1) Sadanand S\/o Damodhar Mawale, Aged-Major, Occ.: \n                        Agriculturist,   R\/o   -   Sawangi   (Gawli),   Tq.   Chikhli, \n                          \n                        Distt. Buldana. \n\n                     2) The   State   of   Maharashtra,   Through   the   Collector, \n                         \n                        Buldhana. \n\n                     3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Buldhana. \n          \n       \n\n\n\n                     FIRST APPEAL NO. 92 OF 2010\n\n    APPELLANT :-         Vidarbha   Irrigation   Development   Corporation, \n                         Through   its   Executive   Engineer,   Minor   Irrigation \n\n\n\n\n\n                         Division No.2, Taq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana.  \n\n                                    -Versus-\n\n    RESPONDENTS :-   1) Kamlabai Dagadu Ghadyale, Aged-Major, Occ.: Agri. \n\n\n\n\n\n                        R\/o - Sawangi (g), Tq. Chikhli, Distt. Buldana. \n\n                     2) The   State   of   Maharashtra,   Through   the   Collector, \n                        Buldhana. \n\n                     3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Buldhana. \n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:35:49 :::\n                                                       ( 2 )\n\n                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                          Shri A. B. Patil, learned counsel for appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                  \n                  Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, learned counsel for respondent No.1.\n                     Shri T.N. Kankale, A. G. P. for respondents No.2 & 3.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                               CORAM  : F. M. REIS, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                               DATED   : FEBRUARY, 10, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    1)           ADMIT.   Heard   forthwith   with   the   consent   of   the   parties.   Respondents <\/p>\n
    waive service of final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
    2)           The  appellant in First Appeal No.91\/2010 is challenging the judgment <\/p>\n
    and order passed by the Reference Court on 13th April, 2006 in Land Acquisition Case <\/p>\n
    No.370\/2000, whereby the reference preferred by the respondent No.1 was partly <\/p>\n
    allowed   and   the   compensation   was   enhanced   and   fixed   at   Rs.60,173\/-   (Rs.Sixty <\/p>\n
    Thousand One Hundred Seventy Three Only) together with other statutory benefits.\n<\/p>\n
    3)           The  appellant in First  Appeal   No.92\/2010   is  challenging  the  judgment <\/p>\n
    and order  passed by the Reference Court on 20th April, 2006 in Land Acquisition Case <\/p>\n
    No.344\/2000, whereby the reference preferred by the respondent No.1 was partly <\/p>\n
    allowed and the compensation was enhanced and fixed at Rs.73,181\/- (Rs.Seventy <\/p>\n
    Three   Thousand   One   Hundred   Eighty   One   Only)   together   with   other   statutory <\/p>\n
    benefits.\n<\/p>\n
    4)           Since   the   points   for   consideration   are   identical   in   both   the   first <\/p>\n
    appeals, the appeals  are taken  up for  final  hearing and the  same are being <\/p>\n
    disposed of by a common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:35:49 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                    ( 3 )<\/p>\n
    5)            There is no dispute that the appellant was the acquiring body and <\/p>\n
    was not a party to the proceeding under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act <\/p>\n
    filed by the respondent No.1 before the Reference Court. The learned counsel <\/p>\n
    for   the   appellant   submits   that   being   the   acquiring   body   the   appellant   is <\/p>\n
    interested   party   in   such   proceedings,   as   the   amount   has   to   be   paid   by   the <\/p>\n
    appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    6)            It is further the contention of the learned counsel that as such the <\/p>\n
    appellant did not get an opportunity to defend the claim of the respondent <\/p>\n
    No.1 for enhancement of compensation. It is further submitted that in similar <\/p>\n
    matters, the Division Bench of this Court has remanded the matter for fresh <\/p>\n
    consideration subject to some terms.\n<\/p>\n
    7)            On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   No.1 <\/p>\n
    submitted that great prejudice would occasion to the respondent No.1 in case <\/p>\n
    the matter is remanded as he has already withdrawn the amount and in any <\/p>\n
    event the respondent No.1 was not at fault as the appellant could have very <\/p>\n
    well   filed   an   application   to   be   a   party   to   the   reference   proceedings   as <\/p>\n
    admittedly the Land Acquisition Officer was a party to such proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
    8)            Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the records, the <\/p>\n
    following point for consideration arise in the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
                  “Whether the judgment passed by the Reference Court stands
\n                  vitiated   as   the   appellant   was   not   a   party   to   the   reference
\n                  proceedings ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:35:49 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                   ( 4 )<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    9)           The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (1995) 2  S.C.C. 326,  <\/p>\n
    in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad -vs- Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    And others, has held at para 24 –\n<\/p>\n
          “24.          To sum up, our conclusions are :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              1.   Section 50 (2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for  <\/p>\n
          whom   land  is  being   acquired  a  right   to  appear   in  the  acquisition
\n          proceedings before the Collector and the reference court and adduce
\n          evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              2.   The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate  <\/p>\n
          notice by the Collector  as well  as the reference  court  before  whom
\n          acquisition proceedings are pending on the date on which the matter  <\/p>\n
          of determination of compensation will be taken up.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              3.  The proviso to Section 50 (2) only precludes a local authority
\n          from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority  <\/p>\n
          which   feels   aggrieved   by   the   determination   of   the   amount   of  <\/p>\n
          compensation by the Collector or by the reference court to invoke the
\n          remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies
\n          available under the L.A. Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              4.  In the event of denial of the right conferred by Section 50 (2)
\n          on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the acquisition
\n          proceedings,   the   local   authority   can   invoke   the   jurisdiction   of   the  <\/p>\n
          High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              5. Even when notice has been served on the local authority the
\n          remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available to
\n          the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is permissible
\n          under Article 226.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:35:49 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                     ( 5 )<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                6. The local authority is a proper party in the proceedings before  <\/p>\n
          the reference court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in those
\n          proceedings wherein it can defend the determination of the amount of  <\/p>\n
          compensation by the Collector and oppose enhancement of the said
\n          amount and also adduce evidence in that regard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                7. In the event of enhancement of the amount of compensation  <\/p>\n
          by the reference court if the Government does not file an appeal, the
\n          local   authority   can   file   an   appeal   against   the   award   in   the   High  <\/p>\n
          Court after obtaining leave of the court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                8. In an appeal by the person having an interest in land seeking  <\/p>\n
          enhancement   of   the   amount   of   compensation   awarded   by   the
\n          reference court, the local authority should be impleaded as a party  <\/p>\n
          and is entitled to be served notice of the said appeal. This would apply
\n          to an appeal in the High Court as well as in this Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                9. Since  a company  for  whom  land  is being  acquired  has the  <\/p>\n
          same right as a local authority under Section 50 (2), whatever has  <\/p>\n
          been said with regard to a local authority would apply to a company
\n          too.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                10. The matters which stand finally concluded will, however, not  <\/p>\n
          be reopened.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10)           In   the   case   of  Agra   Development   Authority   -vs-   Special   Land  <\/p>\n
    Acquisition Officer and others, reported in (2001) 2 S.C.C. 646  considered <\/p>\n
    the same question and held at para-7.\n<\/p>\n
          “7.            ………………………….   What   is  required  by   Section   50   of
\n          the Land Acquisition Act is that the body for whom the property is
\n          being acquired is given an opportunity to appear and adduce evidence  <\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:35:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       ( 6 )<\/p>\n
            for the purposes of determining the amount of compensation. Nothing  <\/p>\n
            could   be   shown   to   us   that   this   had   been   done.   On   this   point   the
\n            matter requires to be sent back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer  <\/p>\n
            for refixing compensation payable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11)              In the judgment reported in  (2004) 12 S.C.C. 96 in the case of  <\/p>\n
    NTPC Ltd. -vs- State of Bihar and others, the Apex Court has held at para-12 <\/p>\n
    & 13.\n<\/p>\n
            “12.          In   our   view,   as   the   appellants   were   entitled   to   be
\n            impleaded in the reference proceedings, the High Court was in error  <\/p>\n
            in not setting aside the awards and referring the cases back to the
\n            Reference Court with a direction that they be impleaded. The fact that  <\/p>\n
            amounts have been enhanced, shows that prejudice has been caused
\n            to  the   appellants.  We,  therefore,   set  aside  the   impugned  judgment  <\/p>\n
            except to the extent that it directs that in all pending references the
\n            appellants   will   be   impleaded   as   parties.   The   awards   made   by   the  <\/p>\n
            Reference   Court   in   492   cases,   where   the   amounts   have   been
\n            enhanced,   are   set   aside.   These   cases   are   remitted   back   to   the  <\/p>\n
            Reference Court. The appellants shall be deemed to have been brought
\n            on record in all these cases as well as all other pending cases. The
\n            reference Court shall try to dispose of the references as expeditiously
\n            as possible. The statement of witnesses already recorded on behalf of  <\/p>\n
            the claimants need not be recorded afresh. However, the appellants
\n            shall have a right to cross-examine the witnesses, if they so desire. For
\n            that   purpose   those   witnesses   shall   be   recalled.   If,   however,   those
\n            witnesses cannot be recalled for a valid reason e.g. because they have
\n            died or cannot be found then their statements shall not be excluded  <\/p>\n
                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:35:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      ( 7 )<\/p>\n
           from consideration and shall be read in evidence. All claimants shall  <\/p>\n
           also   be   entitled   to   adduce   further   evidence,   if   they   so   desire.   The
\n           appellants will be entitled to adduce evidence if they so desire.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           13.           We further direct that if the enhanced compensation has
\n           been paid to the claimants then the same shall not be recalled but
\n           shall finally be adjusted  in the amount  which may be fixed by the  <\/p>\n
           Reference   Court.   It   goes   without   saying   that   if   the   enhanced
\n           compensation has not been paid, then the same shall not be paid.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12)          Thus there can be no dispute that the appellants were entitled to be <\/p>\n
    parties to the reference proceedings filed by the respondent No.1. It was the <\/p>\n
    duty of the respondent No.3 to disclose the name of the Acquiring Body to the <\/p>\n
    Reference Court whilst making the reference.\n<\/p>\n
    13)          In identical matters in First Appeal No.1260\/2006 and First Appeal <\/p>\n
    No.877\/2009 this Court has remanded the matters back for adjudicating the <\/p>\n
    reference afresh after making the Acquiring Body as a party to the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
    14)          Shri Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in both the <\/p>\n
    First   Appeals   bearing   Nos.91\/2010   and   92\/2010   states   that   the   respondent <\/p>\n
    No.1\/land owner has already withdrawn the amount of compensation as per <\/p>\n
    the judgment of the Reference Court, upon furnishing solvent surety. The said <\/p>\n
    withdrawal   is   made   subject   to   final   adjudication   by   the   Reference   Court   in <\/p>\n
    Land Acquisition Case No.370\/2000 and Land Acquisition Case No.344\/2000.\n<\/p>\n
    15)          Subject   to   this,   the   judgment   dated   13th  April,   2006   in   L.A.C.\n<\/p>\n
    No.370\/2000 and the judgment dated 20th April, 2006 in L.A.C. No.344\/2000 <\/p>\n
                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:35:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                               ( 8 )<\/p>\n
    are   quashed   and   set   aside.   The   proceedings   under   Sec.18   of   the   Land <\/p>\n
    Acquisition  Act are restored to the  respective file  of  the Civil  Judge, Senior <\/p>\n
    Division, Buldhana to decide the reference afresh after making the appellant as <\/p>\n
    party to such proceedings and allowing them to file fresh written statement and <\/p>\n
    proceed   with  the  trial   in   accordance  with   law.  The  appeals  are  accordingly <\/p>\n
    allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
    16)         As the matters are old and are being sent back, the Courts below <\/p>\n
    shall endeavour to decide the reference proceedings as early as possible and in <\/p>\n
    any case within the period of six months.\n<\/p>\n
    17)         The appeals are disposed of accordingly. \n            \n\n\n                                                                  JUDGE\n         \n\n\n\n    KHUNTE\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:35:49 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010 Bench: F.M. Reis ( 1 ) HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2010 APPELLANT :- Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.2, Taq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana. -Versus- […]<\/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-36187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFirst Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-12T05:46:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-12T05:46:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1617,\"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\\\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010\",\"name\":\"First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-12T05:46:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-12T05:46:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-12T05:46:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010"},"wordCount":1617,"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\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010","name":"First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-12T05:46:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-91-of-2-vs-unknown-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"First Appeal No. 91 Of 2 vs Unknown on 10 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36187","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=36187"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36187\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}