{"id":38928,"date":"2011-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-28T00:28:50","modified_gmt":"2017-12-27T18:58:50","slug":"state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"State vs Aher on 19 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Aher on 19 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/693\/2009\t 10\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 693 of 2009\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 698 of 2009\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF cGUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY COLLECTOR & & 1 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nAHER\nJAGMAL LAKHMAN JODWA - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nSHACHI MATHUR, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER\nfor Appellant(s) : 1 -\n2. \nMR VIMAL M PATEL for Defendant(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/04\/2011 \n\n \n\nCOMMON\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tchallenge in these appeals is to the common judgment and award dated
\n\t12.10.2007 rendered by the learned Sr.Civil Judge, Veraval in LAR
\n\tCase Nos.6 to 11 of 2005 whereby the reference Court awarded
\n\tadditional amount of compensation to the respondents –
\n\tclaimants @ Rs.1591\/- per RA for Piyat land, and so far as LAR Case
\n\tNos.7 and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the reference Court awarded
\n\tcompensation at the additional rate of Rs.1966\/- per RA.
\n\tFurthermore, so far as the land reference case Nos.6,9,10 and 11 of
\n\t2005 were concerned, the additional amount of compensation was
\n\tgranted on the basis of the yield of various fruits, namely,
\n\tcoconut, badam, gunda etc. and along with judgment and award, two
\n\tschedules came to be attached, namely, Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule
\n\t‘B’, and it transpires that so far as the land reference case
\n\tNos.6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 are concerned, the amount of compensation
\n\tcame to be paid only on the basis of standing fruit bearing trees
\n\tand annual production thereof, and so far as LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005
\n\tare concerned, the reference Court awarded compensation to the
\n\tclaimants of these two land reference cases at the additional rate
\n\tof Rs.1966\/- per RA. The State of Gujarat and the Executive
\n\tEngineer, who were opponents in the reference cases, felt that the
\n\tamount of compensation awarded to the claimants was exorbitant and
\n\ton higher side and, therefore, challenged the impugned judgment and
\n\taward in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
Certain
\n\tagricultural lands belonging to the respondents claimants situated
\n\tin the outskirts of village Kukaswada, Taluka Malia Hatina, District
\n\tJunagadh, detailed in paragraph 2 in the judgment and award,
\n\tproposed to be acquired for the common public purpose of Canal
\n\tconnecting two rivers, namely, Noli and Meghal. The notification
\n\tu\/s.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (‘the Act’, for short) came to be
\n\tpublished on dated 5.11.1998 and the notification u\/s.6 of the Act
\n\twas published on dated 2.2.1999. The Special Land Acquisition
\n\tOfficer conducted inquiry in LAQ No.33 of 1998 to determine the just
\n\tand sufficient amount of compensation and  declared his award u\/s.11
\n\tof the Act on dated 20.04.2001 and offered compensation @ Rs.1100\/-
\n\tper RA for irrigated land and Rs.725\/- per RA for non-irrigated
\n\tland. The claimants felt that the amount offered to them by the
\n\tSpecial Land Acquisition Officer was highly inadequate and
\n\tinsufficient and, therefore, they applied for references, and their
\n\treferences were numbered and registered as LAR Case Nos.6 to 11 of
\n\t2005 wherein they claimed compensation @ Rs.10000\/- per RA.\n<\/p>\n
Since
\n\tall those land reference cases arose out of common award passed by
\n\tthe Special Land Acquisition Officer u\/s.11 of the Act, the
\n\treference Court consolidated all those reference Cases and common
\n\tevidence was recorded. On behalf of the claimants, claimants in land
\n\treference case No.6 of 2005, namely, Jagmalbhai Laxmanbhai and
\n\tclaimant in land reference case  No.7 of 2005, namely, Pradumansinh
\n\tLalubha came to be examined. The claimant examined witness Ganga
\n\tParbatbhai at Exh.22. No more witnesses were examined by the
\n\tclaimants. On behalf of the opponent, the evidence of Lalabhai
\n\tKuberbhai was recorded. Both the parties produced necessary
\n\tdocumentary evidence. After appreciating and evaluating the oral and
\n\tdocumentary evidence on record and considering the submissions
\n\tadvanced on behalf of both the sides, the reference Court came to
\n\tthe conclusion that the amount offered to the claimants by the
\n\tSpecial Land Acquisition Officer was highly inadequate and
\n\tinsufficient and, therefore, so far as the land reference case Nos.7
\n\tand 8 of 2005 are concerned, the reference Court awarded
\n\tcompensation to the respondents – claimants at the additional
\n\trate of Rs.1966\/- per RA and so far as the rest of the land
\n\treference cases, namely, LAR case Nos.6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 are
\n\tconcerned, as per Schedule ‘A’, the reference Court awarded
\n\tcompensation on the basis of annual production of various fruits,
\n\tconsidering average production and the price of various fruits,
\n\tnamely, coconut, badam etc. This has given rise to the instant
\n\tappeals.\n<\/p>\n
Ms.Shachi
\n\tMathur, ld.AGP for the appellants – original respondents
\n\tsubmitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the
\n\treference Court is contrary to law and facts on record. It is
\n\tsubmitted that the reference Court in connection with two reference
\n\tcases, namely, the LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005, determined the amount of
\n\tcompensation, relying upon earlier sale-deed, Exh.24 and came to the
\n\tconclusion that the claimants of these two land reference cases were
\n\tentitled to recover additional amount of compensation @ Rs.1966\/-
\n\tper RA. It is submitted that so far as the remaining four land
\n\treference cases were concerned, the reference Court awarded
\n\tcompensation on the basis of the production of fruits, namely,
\n\tcoconut, badam etc. and by adopting yield method, the reference
\n\tCourt awarded compensation. Ms.Mathur, ld.AGP for the appellants
\n\tsubmitted that the reference Court adopted faulty method in
\n\tdetermining the just and fair amount of compensation. In the
\n\timpugned judgment and award, at one place, the reference Court
\n\tobserved that the claimants were entitled for additional
\n\tcompensation of Rs.1000\/- towards non-fruit tree, but if Schedule
\n\t‘A’ is considered, nowhere it appears that the said formula was
\n\tadopted while determining the amount of compensation. It is further
\n\tsubmitted that except the oral evidence of the claimants, there is
\n\tno cogent and convincing evidence regarding the production of
\n\tvarious fruits and the market price thereof prevalent at the time of
\n\tthe acquisition of the lands. It is, therefore, submitted that the
\n\timpugned judgment and award is based on presumptions and
\n\tassumptions. Ms.Mathur, ld.AGP for the appellants ultimately
\n\tsubmitted that the appeals may be allowed and the impugned common
\n\tjudgment and award rendered by the reference Court be set-aside.\n<\/p>\n
Per
\n\tcontra, Mr.Vimal Patel, ld.advocate for the respondents –
\n\toriginal claimants supported the impugned judgment and award
\n\trendered by the reference Court and stated that the reference Court
\n\thas adopted correct method while determining the amount of
\n\tcompensation. It is submitted that the reference Court rightly
\n\tarrived at the conclusion on the basis of evidence on record. That
\n\texcept LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005, in the remaining four cases, there
\n\twere fruit bearing trees and for those four cases, the reference
\n\tCourt rightly adopted the yield method. It is submitted that qua
\n\tthose four reference cases, the reference Court did not grant the
\n\tcompensation at any fixed rate per RA or per square meter. Mr.Patel,
\n\tld.advocate drew my attention to Form ‘D’ attached to the award
\n\tpassed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer   u\/s.11 of the Act
\n\tand submitted that even qua these four land reference cases, the
\n\tSpecial Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on the basis
\n\tof the standing fruit plantations in the lands and the value of the
\n\tyield, and on the same basis, in the impugned judgment and award,
\n\tthe reference Court awarded the compensation. However, the reference
\n\tCourt was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the
\n\tamount awarded qua these four land reference cases by the Special
\n\tLand Acquisition Officer was quite meagre and insufficient and the
\n\treference Court was perfectly justified in determining the fair and
\n\treasonable amount of compensation. Mr.Patel, ld.advocate for the
\n\trespondents – claimants, therefore, submitted that no ground
\n\tis made out by the appellants to interfere with the impugned
\n\tjudgment and award rendered by the reference Court and all these
\n\tappeals may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave examined the record and proceedings in context with the
\n\tsubmissions advanced by the rival sides.\n<\/p>\n
Examining
\n\tthe record and proceedings of the case, as well as considering the
\n\timpugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court, it
\n\tseems that so far as LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the
\n\treference Court while determining the just and fair amount of
\n\tcompensation relied upon the comparable sale instance, Exh.24 and
\n\tthe evidence of buyer Ganga Parbatbhai recorded at Exh.22. It
\n\ttranspires that the comparable sale instance, Exh.24 pertains to the
\n\tland situated in the outskirts of village Kukaswada itself whereby
\n\tby executing the registered sale-deed dated 15.4.1994 Ganga
\n\tPrabhatbhai, who came to be examined at Exh.22, purchased the land,
\n\tadmeasuring 97 acres at the consideration of Rs.1,80,000\/- and the
\n\treference Court in paragraph 12 in the impugned judgment observed
\n\tthat the consideration price per RA would be Rs.1856\/-. It is
\n\tpertinent to note that the said sale instance is dated 15.4.1994,
\n\twhereas in the instant case, the notification u\/s.4 of the Act came
\n\tto be published on dated 5.11.1998, meaning thereby there was time
\n\tgap of four years and five months. The reference Court, therefore,
\n\tconsidering the earlier decisions of this Court, observed that the
\n\tappreciation in value of land @ 10% p.a. is required to be
\n\tconsidered and, accordingly, the reference Court observed that 45%
\n\tincrease is required to be given and, accordingly, the reference
\n\tCourt came to the conclusion that Rs.835\/- per RA are required to be
\n\tadded in Rs.1856\/- per RA. The claimants of LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005
\n\tare entitled to claim just and fair amount of compensation @
\n\tRs.2691\/- per RA, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered
\n\tcompensation to those claimants @ Rs.725\/- per RA for non-irrigated
\n\tland and, therefore, deducting Rs.725\/- per RA from Rs.2691\/- per
\n\tRA, the claimants of LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005 were entitled to claim
\n\tadditional amount of compensation @ Rs.1966\/- per RA. It is further
\n\tpertinent to note that to substantiate the sale instance, Exh.24,
\n\tthe claimants examined buyer Ganga Parbatbhai as their witness and
\n\tconsidering his evidence, recorded at Exh.22, it clearly transpires
\n\tthat the sale was free sale, without any element of compulsion,
\n\teither on the part of the buyer or on the part of the vendor.
\n\tAccordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the reference Court
\n\tdid not commit any error in relying upon the earlier sale instance
\n\tof the same village while fixing just and reasonable amount of
\n\tcompensation regarding the lands of the claimants of LAR Nos.7 and 8
\n\tof 2005. Perusing the evidence of Ganga Parbatbhai, it further
\n\ttranspires that the acquired lands are situated just nearby the land
\n\tcomprised under the sale instance.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\treference Court, thereafter, took into consideration an admitted
\n\tfact that so far as the claimants of LAR Nos.6,9,10 and 11 were
\n\tconcerned, in their acquired lands, there were standing fruit
\n\tplantations and in support thereof, the reference Court relied upon
\n\tthe evidence of Ranmal Kachrabhai examined at Exh.17, and through
\n\this evidence, the fertility and potentiality of the lands situated
\n\tin this area as well as the types of different fruit plantations
\n\tused to be cultivated in this area and their yields etc. together
\n\twith the price of various fruits prevalent at the relevant time has
\n\tcome on record. Over and above this, there is evidence of witness
\n\tBhagwanjibhai Ramjibhai, examined at Exh.18, who at the relevant
\n\ttime was serving as Secretary in Agricultural Market Committee,
\n\tJunagadh. He produced extracts of relevant register at Exh.52. The
\n\tclaimant of LAR No.6 of 2005, namely, Jagmal Laxmanbhai  came to be
\n\texamined at Exh.21 and considering paragraphs 5 and 6 in his
\n\tevidence, it clearly transpires that in the acquired lands (except
\n\tLAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005) there were tree plantations, namely,
\n\tcoconut, gunda, badam etc. Perusing his deposition, the evidence has
\n\tcome on record about the yield of different fruits in various fruit
\n\ttrees and the relevant price of the fruits thereof. He was
\n\tsuccinctly cross-examined on behalf of the opponent, but nothing
\n\treveals, which would make his evidence either doubtful or improper.
\n\tMoreover, if the statement Form ‘D’ attached to the award passed by
\n\tthe Special Land Acquisition Officer u\/s.11 of the Act is
\n\tconsidered, together with Schedule ‘A’ attached to the impugned
\n\tjudgment and award rendered by the reference Court, it clearly
\n\ttranspires that the number of fruit trees mentioned in both these
\n\tstatements tally with each other. On the basis of the oral and
\n\tdocumentary evidence on record, in the impugned judgment and award
\n\tthe reference Court came to the conclusion that the amount offered
\n\tby the Special Land Acquisition Officer by way of compensation to
\n\tthe claimants of LAR Case Nos.6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 was highly
\n\tinadequate and meagre. As stated above, considering the evidence of
\n\tthe claimants examined before the reference Court, so also the
\n\tevidence of the witnesses, sufficient evidence has come on record
\n\tabout the yield of different types of fruits and the price thereof
\n\tprevalent at the time of the acquisition of the land. In paragraph
\n\t13 in the impugned judgment and award, the reference Court has
\n\texamined this aspect of the matter elaborately. The reference Court
\n\ttook into consideration the earlier decisions of this Court and of
\n\tHon’ble the Apex Court and, ultimately, came to the conclusion that
\n\tthe claimants of those four land reference cases were entitled to
\n\tclaim reasonable amount of compensation as narrated in Schedule ‘A’
\n\tattached to the impugned judgment and award.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tlight of the entire above discussion, this Court is of the opinion
\n\tthat there is no sufficient ground or reason to interfere with the
\n\timpugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court. These
\n\tappeals are, therefore, devoid of any merits and deserve dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe foregoing reasons, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be
\n\tno order as to costs. Registry to send back the R & P of the
\n\tland reference cases to the reference Court forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
(binoy)\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Aher on 19 April, 2011 Author: J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/693\/2009 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 693 of 2009 To FIRST APPEAL No. 698 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38928","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Aher on 19 April, 2011 - 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\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Aher on 19 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-27T18:58:50+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Aher on 19 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-27T18:58:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2228,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011\",\"name\":\"State vs Aher on 19 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-27T18:58:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Aher on 19 April, 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":"State vs Aher on 19 April, 2011 - 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\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Aher on 19 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-27T18:58:50+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Aher on 19 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-27T18:58:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011"},"wordCount":2228,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011","name":"State vs Aher on 19 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-27T18:58:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-aher-on-19-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Aher on 19 April, 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\/38928","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=38928"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38928\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38928"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38928"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38928"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}