{"id":41025,"date":"2009-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-20T18:20:29","modified_gmt":"2018-12-20T12:50:29","slug":"sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n          W.P. (S) No. 1648 of 2008\n\nSateng Xaxa                               ...    Petitioner\n                   Versus\n1. State of Jharkhand\n2. State of Bihar\n3. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government\n    of Bihar, Patna\n4. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government\n    of Jharkhand, Ranchi\n5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna\n6. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla\n7. The Superintendent of Police, Gumla\n8. The Accountant General, Patna, Bihar\n9. The Accountant General, Ranchi, Jharkhand\n10. The District Provident Fund Officer, Gumla\n11. The District Provident Fund Officer, Patna\n                                         ...     Respondents\n\n            .............\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL\n            .............\nFor the Petitioner      : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate\nFor State of Jharkhand : J.C. to A.G.\nFor State of Bihar      : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate\nFor Accountant Generals : J.C. to Mr. S. Shrivastava\n            .............\n\n      5\/ Dated: 27th of August, 2009\n\n1.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the\nhusband of the present petitioner retired on 1st July, 1995 as\nConstable, thereafter, the pension was paid by the State of\nBihar to the husband of the present petitioner. Husband of the\npresent petitioner expired on 24th April, 2004, thereafter, family\npension is paid to the petitioner by the State of Bihar, even on\ntoday, but, several other retirement benefits like amount of\nGratuity, Group Provident Fund amount, Leave Encashment\namount, Group Insurance amount and such other retirement\nbenefits have not yet been paid, which are legally payable to the\npetitioner and, therefore, let a suitable direction is given to the\nconcerned respondent authorities so that legally payable dues\nto the petitioner, may be paid by the respondents.              The\npetitioner is residing within the State of Jharkhand, therefore,\nthe present petition has been instituted before this Court.\n2.    I have heard learned counsels for the respondents, who\nhave vehemently submitted that no cause of action has arisen\nwithin the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, much less part of\ncause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of\nJharkhand High Court and, therefore, the writ petition is not\n                                2\n\n\ntenable at law before this Court. It is also submitted by learned\ncounsel for the State of Bihar as well as learned counsel on\nbehalf of Accountant General Offices at Bihar as well as at\nJharkhand that the petitioner's husband served with the State\nof Bihar, he retired from the State of Bihar on 1st July, 1995.\nAfter his retirement, pension was paid to him by the State of\nBihar. Husband of the petitioner expired on 24th April, 2004,\nthereafter, family pension is also paid by the State of Bihar and,\ntherefore, the amount of Gratuity, Group Provident Fund\namount, Leave Encashment amount, Group Insurance amount\nand such other retirement benefits is payable, by the State of\nBihar and, therefore, this petition is not tenable before this\nCourt.     No cause of action has arisen within the State of\nJharkhand.        Nonetheless, it is fairly submitted by learned\ncounsel for the State of Bihar that they will consider this writ\npetition as a representation and the concerned respondent\nauthorities of the State of Bihar will decide the legally payable\namount of death-cum-retiral benefits to the petitioner and it will\nbe communicated also to the petitioner, she will have to collect\nthe amount from the office of the concerned respondent\nauthority i.e. respondent no. 5.\n3.       Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and\nlooking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears\nthat:-\n(i)      The petitioner has served the State of Bihar and has\nretired from the State of Bihar on 1st July, 1995 as constable.\nThe amount of pension was paid by the State of Bihar,\nthereafter, husband of the petitioner expired on 24th April, 2004\nand the family pension was also paid to the petitioner by the\nState of Bihar.\n(ii)     It has been decided by this Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/156114519\/\">Narayan\nMochi vs. M\/s Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Kolkata &amp; Ors.<\/a> as\nreported in 2009 (3) JLJR 114 that the situs of the petitioner is\nnot a cause of action nor it can be termed as a part of cause of\naction. Paragraphs 16 and 17 thereof read as under:-\n         \"16. The expression \"cause of action\" means that bundle of facts\n         which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a\n         judgment in his favour by the Court. Cause of action implies a\n         right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor\n         to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. It means every\n         fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if\n         traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court.\n         Negatively, it would mean that everything which, if not proved,\n                                 3\n\n\n         gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part\n         of cause of action. For every action there has to be a cause of\n         action, if not, the plaint or petition, as the case may be, shall be\n         rejected summarily. The entire bundle of facts pleaded need not\n         constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before\n         the petitioner can obtain a decree, is the material facts. The\n         material facts is also known as integral part of the cause of action.\n         Unless the facts pleaded are such as have a nexus or relevance with\n         the lis that is involved in the case, they cannot give rise to a cause of\n         action within the court's territorial jurisdiction. The facts which\n         have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not\n         give rise to cause of action.\"\n         \"17. Thus, the petitioner, who resides within the territorial\n         jurisdiction of this Court, has no bearing with the dispute, involved\n         in the case and, therefore, his situs in Jharkhand is not a cause of\n         action, because it has no bearing with the lis and, therefore, his\n         residence within the State of Jharkhand cannot confer a\n         jurisdiction to this Court, if it is otherwise not having.\"\n                                                             (Emphasis supplied)\n(iii)   Thus, residence of the petitioner within the State of\nJharkhand has no relevance with the dispute and, therefore,\nresidence of the present petitioner                  within the State of\nJharkhand can not be labelled as part of cause of action and,\nhence, merely because the petitioner is staying within the State\nof Jharkhand, in background of the aforesaid facts, this Court\nhas no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, filed by\nthe petitioner.\n(iv)    It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of <a href=\"\/doc\/1906232\/\">Addl. General Manager-Human Resources, Bharat\nHeavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde,<\/a> as\nreported in (2007) 5 SCC 336, especially in paragraph no. 15,\nas under:-\n        \"15. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that the\n        order invalidating the caste certificate had been passed by the\n        Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur and, therefore, the earlier two writ\n        petitions filed by the respondent were maintainable before the\n        Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. However, in the third\n        and final writ petition the order under challenge was the order of\n        termination of service which was passed by the appellant on\n        16.7.2004<\/pre>\n<p> at Hyderabad as the respondent was working with Bharat<br \/>\n        Heavy Electrical Ltd.&#8217;s Heavy Power Equipment Plant, Hyderabad.<br \/>\n        Therefore, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had no<br \/>\n        jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition wherein challenge was<br \/>\n        raised to the said order. However, in order to cut short the litigation<br \/>\n        and settle the controversy we have decided the case on merits.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                        (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>(v)     It has been held by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the<br \/>\ncase of <a href=\"\/doc\/1838704\/\">Aligarh Muslim University vs. Vinay Engineering<br \/>\nEnterprises (P) Ltd.,<\/a> as reported in (1994) 4 SCC 710,<br \/>\nespecially in paragraph no. 2, as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                               4<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;2. We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta<br \/>\n       should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely<br \/>\n       no jurisdiction. The contracts in question were executed at Aligarh,<br \/>\n       the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, even the<br \/>\n       contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court<br \/>\n       alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was from Aligarh and<br \/>\n       was to function there. Merely because the respondent was a<br \/>\n       Calcutta-based firm, the High Court of Calcutta seems to have<br \/>\n       exercised jurisdiction where it had none by adopting a queer line of<br \/>\n       reasoning. We are constrained to say that this is a case of abuse of<br \/>\n       jurisdiction and we feel that the respondent deliberately moved the<br \/>\n       Calcutta High Court ignoring the fact that no part of the cause of<br \/>\n       action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. It clearly<br \/>\n       shows that the litigation filed in the Calcutta High Court was<br \/>\n       thoroughly unsustainable.&#8221;<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                                                      (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>(vi)   It has been held by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the<br \/>\ncase of <a href=\"\/doc\/93127\/\">Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar<br \/>\nBasu,<\/a> as reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711, especially in paragraph<br \/>\nno. 12, as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;12. Pointing out that after the issuance of the notification by the<br \/>\n       State Government under Section 52 (1) of the Act, the notified land<br \/>\n       became vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances<br \/>\n       and hence it was not necessary for the respondents to plead the<br \/>\n       service of notice under Section 52 (2) for the grant of an appropriate<br \/>\n       direction or order under Article 226 for quashing the notification<br \/>\n       acquiring the land. This Court, therefore, held that no part of the<br \/>\n       cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High<br \/>\n       Court. This Court, therefore, held that no part of the cause of action<br \/>\n       arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. This Court<br \/>\n       deeply regretted and deprecated the practice prevalent in the High<br \/>\n       Court of exercising jurisdiction and passing interlocutory orders in<br \/>\n       matters where it lacked territorial jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the<br \/>\n       strong observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision and<br \/>\n       in the earlier decisions referred to therein, we are distressed that the<br \/>\n       High Court of Calcutta persists in exercising jurisdiction even in<br \/>\n       cases where no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial<br \/>\n       jurisdiction. It is indeed a great pity that one of the premier High<br \/>\n       Courts of the country should appear to have developed a tendency to<br \/>\n       assume jurisdiction on the sole ground that the petitioner before it<br \/>\n       resides in or carries on business from a registered office in the State<br \/>\n       of West Bengal. We feel all the more pained that notwithstanding<br \/>\n       the observations of this Court made time and again, some of the<br \/>\n       learned Judges continue to betray that tendency. Only recently while<br \/>\n       disposing of appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 10065-66 of 1993,<br \/>\n       <a href=\"\/doc\/1838704\/\">Aligarh Muslim University vs. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P)<br \/>\n       Ltd.,<\/a> this Court observed:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of<br \/>\n       Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had<br \/>\n       absolutely no jurisdiction.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               In that case, the contract in question was executed at Aligarh,<br \/>\n       the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, the contracts<br \/>\n       provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court alone will<br \/>\n       have jurisdiction, the arbitrator was appointed at Aligarh and was to<br \/>\n       function at Aligarh and yet merely because the respondent was a<br \/>\n       Calcutta based firm, it instituted proceedings in the Calcutta High<br \/>\n       Court and the High Court exercised jurisdiction where it had none<br \/>\n       whatsoever. It must be remembered that the image and prestige of a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                 court depends on how the members of that institution conduct<br \/>\n                 themselves. If an impression gains ground that even in cases which<br \/>\n                 fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members<br \/>\n                 of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that<br \/>\n                 some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of<br \/>\n                 action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants<br \/>\n                 would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such<br \/>\n                 members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the<br \/>\n                 dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We<br \/>\n                 are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the<br \/>\n                 growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the<br \/>\n                 institution and the system of administration of justice. We do hope<br \/>\n                 that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a situation.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                                                   (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>        4.       In view of the aforesaid decisions also, the present<br \/>\n        petition is not tenable at law before this Court for want of<br \/>\n        territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action or part of cause of<br \/>\n        action as said to have been arisen within the territorial region of<br \/>\n        the State of Jharkhand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>        5.       As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid fact, reasons and<br \/>\n        judicial pronouncements, this writ petition is not tenable at law<br \/>\n        before      this   Court      for   want     of    territorial    jurisdiction.<br \/>\n        Nonetheless, learned counsel for the State of Bihar submitted<br \/>\n        that they will consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance<br \/>\n        with law and the decision is taken by the State of Bihar and will<br \/>\n        be conveyed to the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>        6.       The petition is, hereby, disposed of as dismissed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                                                    (D.N. Patel, J.)<\/p>\n<p>Ajay\/\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1648 of 2008 Sateng Xaxa &#8230; Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. State of Bihar 3. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Secretary, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009 - 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\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-20T12:50:29+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-20T12:50:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1003,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-20T12:50:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009 - 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\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-20T12:50:29+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-20T12:50:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009"},"wordCount":1003,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009","name":"Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-20T12:50:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sateng-xaxa-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sateng Xaxa vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 27 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41025","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=41025"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41025\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}