{"id":46717,"date":"2011-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-05-01T21:35:14","modified_gmt":"2015-05-01T16:05:14","slug":"patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Patel vs State on 6 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Patel vs State on 6 September, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\nSCA\/6941\/1996\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6941 of 1996\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPATEL\nKHODABHAI KABABHAI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nASHISH H SHAH for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS SACHI MATHUR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/09\/2011 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah appearing for petitioner and<br \/>\nlearned AGP Ms. Sachi Mathur appearing for respondent state<br \/>\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIn<br \/>\npresent petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 27\/6\/1996<br \/>\npassed by respondent no.2 confirming order passed by respondent no.3<br \/>\ndated 29\/9\/1993.  Pending petition, a further prayer has been made to<br \/>\ngrant interim relief in terms of para-25(C) and 25(D) of the<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIn<br \/>\nthis matter, notice has been issued by this Court on 24\/10\/1996 but<br \/>\nno interim relief has been granted except to direction to parties to<br \/>\nmaintain status quo till the notice made returnable.  That status quo<br \/>\nwhich was granted on 24\/10\/1996 remained continue accordingly.  The<br \/>\nCourt passed an order dated 27\/6\/1996 wherein earlier order passed by<br \/>\nthe competent authority on 29\/9\/1993 has been confirmed and interim<br \/>\nrelief which was granted on 4\/11\/1993 has been vacated.  Annexures-H,<br \/>\nAppeal No.22 of 1993 has been decided wherein order passed by<br \/>\ncompetent authority Additional Collector under ULC Act dated<br \/>\n29\/9\/1993 was challenged against that appeal has been dismissed and<br \/>\naforesaid order by Additional Collector  has been confirmed.<br \/>\nAffidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent competent authority<br \/>\nAdditional Collector ULC Rajkot.  Relevant averments are made in<br \/>\npara-5 to 14 of affidavit-in-reply which are quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;5.\n<\/p>\n<p>I say and submit that the petitioner was in the possession of the<br \/>\nland bearing survey No.248 admeasuring 04 acres and 02 gunthas<br \/>\nsituated as Rajkot.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.<br \/>\nI say and submit that the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred as the said Act) came into the force therefore<br \/>\nthe petitioner has filed the form No.6(1) which was registered as<br \/>\ncase No. ULC\/6(1)1583\/76 at Rajkot as well as another form which was<br \/>\nregistered as ULC\/6(1)3918\/81.  The petitioner has made an<br \/>\napplication for granting the agricultural exemption in survey no.248<br \/>\nadmeasuring 16795 sq. m.  On dated 3-11-1979 exemption was granted by<br \/>\nthe Revenue Department under section 20(1) of the said Act with some<br \/>\nterms and conditions.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.<br \/>\nI say and submit that Village form no.8-A shows only the name of the<br \/>\npetitioner as an owner of the land therefore on dated 21-10-86 the<br \/>\nshow cause notice issued by the respondent No.1 for the reason that,<br \/>\nwhy the exemption order granting agricultural exemption should not be<br \/>\nrevoked on the ground that the land in question was not being<br \/>\ncultivated.  The petitioner has filed his reply and objection before<br \/>\nthe concerned authority.  The State of Gujarat on dated 17-6-87<br \/>\npassed an order ULC\/2083\/130790-V-1 for withdrawing the exemption of<br \/>\nthe land u\/s.20(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.<br \/>\nI say and submit that in pursuant to the said order the petitioner<br \/>\ncan entitle only 1500 Sq. Mt. land and 14981.97 Sq. Mt. Land declared<br \/>\nas excess land.  The draft Statement u\/s.8(3) sent to the petitioner<br \/>\nby RPAD on dated 21-7-82.  The petitioner has not send any objections<br \/>\nin time therefore draft statement of u\/s8(3) was considered as a<br \/>\nfinal statement u\/s.9 on dated 30-8-82.  The said copy of the annexed<br \/>\nis the copy of Annexure-R1.  The notifications u\/s 10(1) was issued<br \/>\non dated 13-8-87 that was published in Gazette on 3-9-87.  The said<br \/>\ncopy of the annexed here to and marked as Annexure-R2.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.<br \/>\nI say and submit that the notification u\/s 10(3) was issued on dated<br \/>\n12-10-87. which was published in Gazette on dated 3-12-87.  The same<br \/>\nis annexed here to and marked as an Annexure-R3 in this reply.  The<br \/>\nnotice u\/s 10(5) was issued to the petitioner on dated 4-12-87, that<br \/>\nwas sent to him by the RPAD and same was survived.  As the land<br \/>\nholder had not handed over the possession within the stipulated<br \/>\nperiod of 30 days the possession was duly taken U\/S 10(6) of the act<br \/>\non dated 26-10-88 by prepare panchanama evidencing taking of the<br \/>\npossession of the said land.  The land holder also informed about the<br \/>\nfactum of having taken possession of the land U\/S 10(6) in accordance<br \/>\nwith the procedure prescribed under the Act which is Annexued here to<br \/>\nmark as an Annexure- R4.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.<br \/>\nI say and submit that the petitioner has challenge the order passed<br \/>\nby the competent authority and Deputy collector, Rajkot before the<br \/>\nULT Ahmedabad by way of Appeal No. Rajkot 181\/87.  The ULT Ahmedabd<br \/>\non dated 17-1-91 remanded the matter before the competent authority<br \/>\nRajkot without quashed and set aside the earlier proceedings copy of<br \/>\nthe same is annexed here to and marked as an Annexure- R5 to<br \/>\nthis reply.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.<br \/>\nI say and submit that in the said remand case the competent authority<br \/>\nhas passed an order on dated 29-9-1993.  In the same order it was<br \/>\nclearly mentioned that the petitioner has already sold the same land<br \/>\nin the year 1982 to the Sitaram Coop housing Society by way of the<br \/>\nsatakhat and the construction also made on the same land.  A copy of<br \/>\nthe Village Extract 7\/12 is annexed here to and marked as an<br \/>\nAnnexure-R6.  Therefore there is breach of the condition of<br \/>\nthe section 20(1).\n<\/p>\n<p>12.<br \/>\nI say and submit that, the competent authority Rajkot passed the<br \/>\norder that petitioner was entitled to keep only 1500 Sq.mt of land<br \/>\nand 14981.97 sq.mt land declare as a excess land, therefore, final<br \/>\nstatement u\/s.9 was issued to the petitioner copy of the said order<br \/>\nis annexed here to and marked as an Annexure-R7.  In pursuant<br \/>\nto the said order the respondent has issued the final statement on<br \/>\ndated 29-9-1993.  Copy of the said final statement is annexed here to<br \/>\nand mark as an Annexure-R8.  The respondent authority has not<br \/>\ndone any further proceedings because they have already taken<br \/>\npossession on dated 26-10-1988 and that proceeding was nto challenged<br \/>\nby the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tI<br \/>\nsay and submit that being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner<br \/>\nhas preferred an appeal no. Rajkot\/22\/93 before the ULT Ahmedabad.<br \/>\nThe ULT Ahmedabad has granted the stay on dated 4-11-1993 in his stay<br \/>\nthe procedure u\/s. 10(1) and u\/s. 10(2) was allowed and stay was<br \/>\ngranted only on the procedure of 10(3).  The petitioner not come with<br \/>\nclean hand before the ULT Ahmedabad, he has not stated that the<br \/>\nrespondent authority has already taken the possession on dated<br \/>\n26-10-1988.  The ULT Ahmedabad has passed the order on dated<br \/>\n27-3-1996 to confirm the earlier order and status quo granted on<br \/>\ndated 4-1-1993 was vacated.  Against that order the petitioner has<br \/>\npreferred the Special Civil application no.6941 of 1996 before this<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Court and this Hon&#8217;ble Court has granted status quo from the<br \/>\nyear 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tI<br \/>\nsay and submit that the respondent authority has already taken the<br \/>\npossession on dated 26-10-1988 in the presence of the panch therefore<br \/>\nthere is no questions arise to do the same proceedings again. The<br \/>\nsame possession was not challenged by the petitioner and the<br \/>\npetitioner has not mentioned this facts before this Hon&#8217;ble Court.<br \/>\nThe Repeal Act came in to force on 30-3-1999 according to that the<br \/>\npossession remain with the Government.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIn<br \/>\nview of aforesaid averments made in affidavit-in-reply in para-14<br \/>\nthat possession of land in question is already taken by State<br \/>\nGovernment on 26\/10\/1988 in presence of panchas.  Therefore, question<br \/>\ndoes not arise to initiate same proceedings again.  According to<br \/>\nrespondents, the same possession was not challenged by petitioner and<br \/>\npetitioner has not mentioned this fact before this Court.  The Repeal<br \/>\nAct came into force with effect from 30\/3\/1999.  Therefore, according<br \/>\nto State Government the possession is remained with State Government<br \/>\nand this proceeding is required to be abated.  The further averments<br \/>\nmade in para-12 in affidavit-in-reply that respondent authority has<br \/>\nnot done any further proceeding because they have already taken<br \/>\npossession on 26\/10\/1988 and that proceeding was not challenged by<br \/>\npetitioner.  Against present affidavit-in-reply, no rejoinder is<br \/>\nfiled by petitioner before this Court and averments made in<br \/>\naffidavit-in-reply by respondent has not been challenged and no<br \/>\ncounter is filed.  Therefore, the averments made in<br \/>\naffidavit-in-reply as referred above and there is no counter to it<br \/>\nfiled by petitioner, therefore, considering the Urban Land (Ceiling<br \/>\nand Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 which came into force with effect<br \/>\nfrom 30\/3\/1999 by notification dated 18\/3\/1999 as per Section-3<br \/>\nwhich is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;3.\tSavings:&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)<br \/>\nthe vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 10,<br \/>\npossession of which has been taken over by the State Government or<br \/>\nany person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or<br \/>\nby the competent authority;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)<br \/>\nthe validity of any order granting exemption under sub-section (1) of<br \/>\nsection 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any<br \/>\njudgment of any court to the contrary;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)<br \/>\nany payment made to the State government as a condition for granting<br \/>\nexemption under sub-section 91) of section 20.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">(2)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Where &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)<br \/>\nany land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under<br \/>\nsub-section (3) of section 10 of the Principal Act but possession of<br \/>\nwhich has not been taken over by the State Government in this behalf<br \/>\nor by the competent authority; and <\/p>\n<p>(b)<br \/>\nany amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such<br \/>\nland, <\/p>\n<p>then<br \/>\nsuch land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has<br \/>\nbeen refunded to the State Government.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tbefore<br \/>\nRepeal Act, 1999 came into effect, a possession of land in question<br \/>\nhas been taken over by respondent competent authority and<br \/>\nnotification Section 10(3) has been already issued.  Now possession<br \/>\nis with the State Government.  Therefore, as per Section-3<br \/>\nsub-section 2 any land wherein possession is taken by State<br \/>\nGovernment after issuing Section-10 sub-section 3 notification then,<br \/>\nland in question is vested with State Government as per Section-3 (a)<br \/>\nand Repeal Act, 1999 is not having any adverse effect to the right of<br \/>\nState Government of having vested land in State Government.  The<br \/>\nprovision of Section-4 of Repeal Act, 1999 is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;4.\n<\/p>\n<p>Abatement of legal proceedings. &#8211; All proceedings relating to any<br \/>\norder made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending<br \/>\nimmediately before the commencement of this Act, before any court,<br \/>\ntribunal or other authority shall abate:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided<br \/>\nthat this section shall not apply to proceedings relating to sections<br \/>\n11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings<br \/>\nare relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by<br \/>\nthe State Government or any person duly authorised by the State<br \/>\nGovernment in this behalf or by the competent authority.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tAccordingly,<br \/>\nin view of above provisions of Section-4 of Repeal Act, 1999, this<br \/>\nproceeding is abated.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tPresent<br \/>\npetition is accordingly disposed of.  Rule is discharged.  Interim<br \/>\nrelief, if any, stands vacated immediately.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.K.RATHOD,<br \/>\nJ.) <\/p>\n<p>(ila)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Patel vs State on 6 September, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/6941\/1996 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6941 of 1996 ========================================================= PATEL KHODABHAI KABABHAI &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 2 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&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-46717","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Patel vs State on 6 September, 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\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patel vs State on 6 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-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=\"2011-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-01T16:05:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patel vs State on 6 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-01T16:05:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1758,\"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\\\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Patel vs State on 6 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-01T16:05:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patel vs State on 6 September, 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":"Patel vs State on 6 September, 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\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patel vs State on 6 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-01T16:05:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patel vs State on 6 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-01T16:05:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011"},"wordCount":1758,"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\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011","name":"Patel vs State on 6 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-01T16:05:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-6-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patel vs State on 6 September, 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\/46717","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=46717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}