{"id":39968,"date":"2011-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-09-15T04:55:30","modified_gmt":"2017-09-14T23:25:30","slug":"special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n\n\n     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5930 of 2003\n\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n     LALITABEN TANSUKHLAL SAMEJA\nVersus\n     STATE OF GUJARAT\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n     Appearance:\n     1. Special Civil Application No. 5930 of 2003\n          MR PC KAVINA for Petitioner No. 1\n          .......... for Respondent No. 1\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n              CORAM : MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\n\n              Date of Order: 02\/05\/2003\n\n\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>     1.The present petition is      preferred   by   the<br \/>\n     petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the<br \/>\n     order dated 22.4.2003 passed by the State Government<br \/>\n     under provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling &amp; Regulation)<br \/>\n     Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as the ULC Act]. The<br \/>\n     petitioner has also prayed for declaring the orders<br \/>\n     entries or actions taken pursuant to rojkam dated 12.6.97<br \/>\n     as illegal.    The petitioner has further prayed for a<br \/>\n     direction to the respondents to remove the present land<br \/>\n     in question from the list of excess land by which the<br \/>\n     possession is alleged to have been taken         by   the<br \/>\n     Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.Heard Mr.    Kavina, learned advocate for the<br \/>\n     petitioner. The contentions raised by Mr. Kavina is<br \/>\n     that as such the possession was not taken over in the<br \/>\n     year 1987 as referred to in the impugned order [on<br \/>\n     internal page 12].     He submitted that there is       a<br \/>\n     panchnama drawn on 12.6.1997, copy whereof is made<br \/>\n     available by him for perusal of the Court. Therefore, he<br \/>\n     submitted that when the actual possession of the land in<br \/>\n     question was not taken over, the petitioner would be<br \/>\n     entitled to the benefit of the repealing Act. He further<br \/>\n     submitted that even otherwise also, the so         called<br \/>\n     panchnama dated 12.6.1997 is a mere paper panchnama, and<br \/>\n     the petitioner continued to enjoy the possession even<br \/>\n until the repealing Act was brought about and came into<br \/>\nforce. Therefore he submitted that the declaration of<br \/>\nthe land as surplus land, which was made by the competent<br \/>\nauthority under the U.L.C.      Act cannot be allowed to<br \/>\noperate, and in any event, the same cannot be enforced<br \/>\nafter the repealing Act. Mr. Kavina also submitted that<br \/>\nthe question regarding the factum of the possession was<br \/>\nrequired to be decided by the authority but in the<br \/>\ndecision which is passed by the authority upon the<br \/>\nrepresentation of the petitioner pursuant to the order<br \/>\ndated 5.10.2001 passed by this Court (Coram:         H.K.<br \/>\nRathod, J.) in SCA No. 8894\/01, there is no finding to<br \/>\nthat effect.   Mr.    Kavina also submitted that even<br \/>\notherwise, the land was falling in the agricultural zone,<br \/>\nand therefore, as per the Government Resolution dated<br \/>\n13.8.1999 which has been issued after the repeal of the<br \/>\nULC Act, such land cannot be processed further for the<br \/>\npurpose of taking possession or otherwise under the then<br \/>\nU.L.C. Act. He also submitted that in any event, the<br \/>\napplication of the petitioner under section 20 of the ULC<br \/>\nAct for grant of exemption was pending, and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe competent authority could not have proceeded for<br \/>\ndeclaration of the land as surplus land, and such action<br \/>\ncan be said to be illegal. He therefore submitted that<br \/>\nthe matter requires consideration, more particularly on<br \/>\nthe factum of possession and the factum regarding taking<br \/>\nof the possession by the authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.Having considered the above, I am of the view<br \/>\nthat a perusal of the order of April 2003, copy whereof<br \/>\nis produced at Annexure &#8216;H&#8217;, shows that there is a<br \/>\nreference regarding various proceedings under the U.L.C.<br \/>\nAct. The proceedings came to be concluded as back as in<br \/>\nthe year 1986-87 which would be about 17 years from even<br \/>\nfirst petition being Special Civil Application        No.<br \/>\n8894\/01.   Not only that but the land was declared as<br \/>\nsurplus land for the first time by the          competent<br \/>\nauthority as per decision dated 30th November 1985.<br \/>\nThereafter, the notification under section 10 of the ULC<br \/>\nAct was published and the possession was taken on<br \/>\n12.6.1987. Not only that, but after the State Government<br \/>\ntook over the possession of the land, it is disposed of<br \/>\nby the State Government under section 23 of the U.L.C.<br \/>\nAct whereby 575 plots of 25 sq. mtrs each are allotted<br \/>\nfor the weaker section as per the order dated 24.1.1992<br \/>\nand the possession is also handed over,         and   the<br \/>\npossession receipts are also issued. Therefore, in my<br \/>\nview, when the State Government has not only taken over<br \/>\nthe possession by drawing a panchnama but also acted upon<br \/>\nthe same by further allotting the land, it cannot be said<br \/>\nthat the possession is not taken over in the eye of law.<br \/>\n The contention that the petitioner       is   in   actual<br \/>\npossession even on today, in my view, is not only not<br \/>\ninspiring any confidence but even cannot be entertained<br \/>\nbecause even if the petitioner is in actual possession<br \/>\nafter the aforesaid lawful process undertaken by the<br \/>\nState Government, it can reasonably be said that the<br \/>\npetitioner is in unauthorized possession because the<br \/>\nprocedure known to law for taking over the possession is<br \/>\ndrawing of panchnama, and it has been done in the instant<br \/>\nmatter. In any case, when the land was declared as<br \/>\nsurplus land as back us in the year 1985, the petitioner<br \/>\ndid not challenge the said order and the said order was<br \/>\nnot challenged in any case until in the year 1987 when<br \/>\nthe Government took over the possession and further until<br \/>\nin the year 1992 when the Government allotted the plot<br \/>\nfor weaker section. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot<br \/>\nbe allowed to take up a contention that the application<br \/>\nunder section 20 of the ULC Act was pending, and<br \/>\ntherefore the proceedings for declaration of the land and<br \/>\nthe proceedings pursuant thereto are illegal.       In my<br \/>\nview, merely because the application under section 20 was<br \/>\npending, that would not render the proceedings for final<br \/>\ndeclaration of the land under section 8 as per-se void or<br \/>\nnullity.   The Court may examine the challenge if such<br \/>\nquestions are raised within reasonable time, and in any<br \/>\ncase, before the land is vested in the Government. In<br \/>\nthe present case, after a period of about more than 17<br \/>\nyears, the challenge is brought to the Court regarding<br \/>\nthe declaration of the land as surplus land on the ground<br \/>\nof pendency of the application under section 20, in my<br \/>\nview, cannot be accepted and deserves to be rejected<br \/>\noutright.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.As regards the contention regarding the land<br \/>\nfalling under agricultural zone is concerned, it was for<br \/>\nthe petitioner to prefer an appeal or to challenge the<br \/>\norder of the authority at the relevant point of time. On<br \/>\nthe contrary, the conduct of the petitioner shows that<br \/>\nthe order is not challenged within a reasonable period,<br \/>\nand therefore, it can be said as accepted by the implied<br \/>\nconduct of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.Once a party having not chosen to challenge the<br \/>\norder at the relevant point of time and more than 15<br \/>\nyears time have elapsed, cannot be allowed to take undue<br \/>\nbenefit of the repealing of the Act on the ground that<br \/>\nthey are in actual possession though the possession may<br \/>\nbe unauthorized or unlawful. The other contentions, in<br \/>\nmy view, which are raised by Mr. Kavina are covered by a<br \/>\njudgment of this Court in the case of VINODCHANDRA V.<br \/>\nBAVSHI vs STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2000 (3) GLR 2592<br \/>\n on the question of actual possession and further acting<br \/>\nupon the same.     Merely because the authority has not<br \/>\nexamined the question regarding subsequent panchnama<br \/>\ndated   12.6.1997,   in my view, would not give any<br \/>\nadditional right to the petitioner because as such, the<br \/>\norder of this Court dated 5.10.1991 in SCA No. 8894\/01<br \/>\ncan at the most be read as enabling the petitioner to<br \/>\nmake a representation, and, therefore, while deciding the<br \/>\nrepresentation, the State Government is not exercising<br \/>\nthe power as a quasi judicial authority where each and<br \/>\nevery contentions are to be dealt with. On an overall<br \/>\nreading of the order, in my view, when the State<br \/>\nGovernment has found that the possession was taken long<br \/>\nback and the petitioner would not be entitled to any<br \/>\nbenefit of the repealing Act, it cannot be said that the<br \/>\norder passed by the State Government is arbitrary or<br \/>\nunconstitutional which calls for interference by this<br \/>\nCourt in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.Before parting with, I may also observe that the<br \/>\npresent litigation appears to be an ingenious device to<br \/>\ntake undue benefit of the repealing Act and I am inclined<br \/>\nto take such a view because for a period of about 18<br \/>\nyears, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the<br \/>\nproceedings under the ULC Act and it is only when the<br \/>\nrepealing Act is brought out, the present challenge is<br \/>\nbrought to the court, which, in my view, is not at all<br \/>\ninspiring any confidence, nor can it be said that the<br \/>\npetitioner is prosecuting the remedy in accordance with<br \/>\nlaw. Hence, I find that petitioner would not be entitled<br \/>\nto invoke extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of<br \/>\nthis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.In view of the aforesaid, I find no substance in<br \/>\nthis petition; hence dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>[JAYANT PATEL, J.]<br \/>\nmathew\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp; IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5930 of 2003 &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; LALITABEN TANSUKHLAL SAMEJA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 5930 of 2003 MR PC KAVINA for Petitioner [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39968","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-14T23:25:30+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\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T23:25:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1444,\"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\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T23:25:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-14T23:25:30+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\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T23:25:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011"},"wordCount":1444,"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\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011","name":"Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T23:25:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/39968","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=39968"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39968\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39968"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39968"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39968"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}