{"id":47151,"date":"2011-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011"},"modified":"2018-12-09T03:17:41","modified_gmt":"2018-12-08T21:47:41","slug":"dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Md Shah,&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\nSCA\/4483\/1999\t 11\/ 11\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4483 of 1999\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH  \n \n\n\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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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\nDALPATBHAI\nKARSANBHAI PATEL & 2 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nAJ PATEL FOR MR TATTVAM K PATEL\nfor\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2.                                         \n         MR YN RAVANI for Petitioner(s) : 3, \nMR LR PUJARI, AGP for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :\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 MD SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/02\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
By
\n\tthis petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 20-3-1991
\n\tpassed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, ULC Nanpura,
\n\tSurat, order dated 1-10-1997 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue
\n\tDepartment, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, as well as Gazette
\n\tNotification dated 30-4-1992 declaring agricultural lands of the
\n\tpetitioners as excess vacant lands under Section 10(5) of the Urban
\n\tLand (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter for the sake of
\n\tbrevity referred to as ‘the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
Facts
\n\tin short as contended in the petition are that agricultural lands
\n\tbearing Survey Nos.58\/3 and 59\/2 situated at Village Jahangipura,
\n\tTaluka Choryasi, District Surat, were purchased by the petitioners
\n\tby a registered sale deed on 13-4-1978 and  entries were mutated in
\n\tthe revenue records. According to the petitioners, as the said lands
\n\twere being used for agricultural purposes and as they fell within
\n\tthe Agricultural Zone under ULC Master Plan in 1976, said lands were
\n\tnot vacant lands under the Act and, therefore, the petitioners did
\n\tnot file form as required under Sec.6 of the Act. Father of
\n\trespondent No.3 filed Form No.1 on 15-9-1976. Competent Authority
\n\tvide order dated 20-3-1991 declared the lands of the petitioners as
\n\texcess vacant lands. Notification in this regard was published in
\n\tthe Government Gazette on 30-4-1992. Deputy Secretary, Revenue
\n\tDepartment, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, vide order dated 1-10-1997
\n\tconfirmed the order of Competent Authority. On coming to know  of
\n\ttheir agricultural lands having declared as excess vacant lands by
\n\tthe Government, this petition has been filed by the petitioners
\n\tchallenging the aforesaid orders of Competent Authority and Revenue
\n\tAuthority of State Government and also publication of notification
\n\tin the Government Gazette.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned Senior Advocate, Mr.A.J.Patel for Mr.T.K.Patel for the
\n\tpetitioners and learned AGP, Mr.L.R.Pujari, for the respondent Nos.1
\n\tand 2.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis submitted by learned counsel, Mr.A.J.Patel that  in light of
\n\tjudgment dated 4-10-2001 delivered by this Court (Coram: A.R.Dave &
\n\tD.P.Buch,JJ.) in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.498 and 699 of 1995 in
\n\tSpecial Civil Application Nos.6194 of 1984 and 5508 of 1988,  notice
\n\tunder Sec.10(5) of the Act ought to have been issued to the present
\n\tpetitioners as  they were in possession of the disputed lands.
\n\tAccording to him, in the present case, it is an admitted fact that
\n\tno notice was issued to the petitioners under Sec.10(5) of the Act
\n\tand hence, orders and notification are required to be quashed and
\n\tset aside. It is further submitted that lands of the petitioners
\n\twere being used for agricultural purpose and, therefore, they fell
\n\twithin the agricultural zone  under ULC Master Plan prevailing in
\n\t1976 being non-vacant lands and hence,  under bona fide belief, they
\n\tdid not file form as required under Sec.6 of the Act. It is further
\n\tsubmitted that as per
\n\tthe law laid down
\n\tby the Apex Court reported in AIR
\n\t1993 Supreme Court p.2465 in
\n\tthe case of Smt.Atia
\n\tMohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P and others, declaration
\n\tis not required to be filed by the present petitioners.
\n\tThis aspect has not been considered by the
\n\tCompetent Authority as well as the Revenue authority. It is further
\n\tsubmitted that though sufficient documentary evidences including
\n\tsale deed executed qua the lands in question were  produced for
\n\testablishing the possession of the disputed lands by the
\n\tpetitioners, both the authorities did not consider the same and came
\n\tto the wrong conclusion that the petitioners were never in
\n\tpossession of the suit lands and, hence, since impugned orders are
\n\tillegal and perverse, they are required to be quashed and set aside.
\n\t He relied on the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
i)
\n\t(2003)7 Supreme Court Cases p.336 in the case of State of
\n\tMaharashtra and Another Vs. B.E.Billimoria and Others;\n<\/p>\n
ii)
\n\t 2009(3) GCD 2543 (Guj) (DB) in the case of Niranjan Maganlal Mehta
\n\tVs. Competent Authority & Addl. Collector & Ors.;\n<\/p>\n
iii)
\n\t2006(3) G.L.H. p. 487 in the case of Indrajitsing P.Geel Vs.
\n\tCompetent Authority & Deputy Collector and another; and<\/p>\n
iv)
\n\t2007(3) G.L.R. p. 2231 in the case of Laxmanbhai K.Chokshi Vs.
\n\tCompetent Authority & Additional Collector (U.L.C.).\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis submitted by learned AGP, Mr.L.R.Pujari, for the respondent Nos.1
\n\tand 2, that the present petition has been filed after long lapse of
\n\ttime and, therefore, on the ground of delay and laches, it is
\n\trequired to be dismissed. It is further submitted that at the time
\n\tof filing form under Sec.6, the original landholder Makanbhai
\n\tRanchhodbhai did not disclose the fact of selling the lands in
\n\tquestion to the present petitioners and, therefore, no notice as
\n\tprovided under Sec.10(5) of the Act was required to be issued to the
\n\tpetitioners. It is further submitted that even before taking over
\n\tpossession, all procedures as provided under the Act have been
\n\tfollowed and notification in this regard was also published in the
\n\tOfficial Gazette inviting objections and, hence, there was no need
\n\tfor giving individual notice. It is further submitted that when
\n\tobjections were invited, original landholder submitted his reply
\n\tthrough his advocate before the Competent Authority but did not
\n\tdisclose the fact that the lands were sold to the petitioners
\n\tthereby the petitioners were put in possession of the disputed lands
\n\tand, therefore also, notice under Sec.10(5) was not required to be
\n\tissued to the petitioners. It is further submitted that possession
\n\tof the lands has been taken over by the Competent Authority by
\n\tdrawing panchnama. According to him, sufficient documentary evidence
\n\tis there on record to show that lands in question were vested with
\n\tthe Government and, hence, with ulterior motive and in collusion
\n\twith the original landlord, present petition has been filed. It is,
\n\ttherefore, urged that the present petition be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has only
\n\tlimited power to go through the facts of the case when both the
\n\tauthorities below, after considering the documentary as well as
\n\tmaterial evidences placed on record, passed the orders.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tper the petitioners, they purchased the disputed lands from
\n\trespondent No.3 on 13-4-1978 by registered sale deed after obtaining
\n\tno objection from competent authority on 29-12-1977. However, copy
\n\tof the sale deed purported to have been executed on 13-4-1978
\n\tentitling them to become owners of the lands has not been produced
\n\teither on record or before this Court for perusal. Therefore, a
\n\tpresumption under Sec.144 and 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act can be
\n\tdrawn that said document is neither in existence or withheld as
\n\tbeing not in their favour.  Had  copy of this document been produced
\n\ton record, it would have been helpful to the Competent Authority as
\n\twell as this Court to decide the matter. However, as   they did not
\n\tproduce the same, it cannot be believed that the petitioners have
\n\tbeen in possession of the lands through the said sale deed. The
\n\tpetitioners are only relying upon abstract of Form Nos.7 and 12 as
\n\twell as  revenue records in this regard. However, by revenue
\n\trecords, title of the lands cannot be decided. Since this is a
\n\tdisputed question of fact, this cannot be agitated in a petition
\n\tfiled under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis to be noted that the original landlord was called several times
\n\tby the authority but he did not disclose the aspect of selling the
\n\tlands  to the petitioners and after drawing panchnama, which was
\n\tnever objected to by the original landlord, entry has been mutated
\n\tand Government has been shown to be in possession of the lands in
\n\tthe revenue records and, therefore, the petitioners could by no
\n\tstretch of imagination be said to be in possession of the  suit
\n\tlands. It is pertinent to note that once public notice was issued in
\n\tthe Official Gazette, it was the bounden duty of the present
\n\tpetitioners to have disclosed the aspect of sale deed having
\n\texecuted in their favour by the original landholder before the
\n\tCompetent Authority. However,  they refrained from doing so and,
\n\tafter a long lapse of nine years, preferred the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis apparent from Sec.3 of the Act that no person shall hold any
\n\tvacant land in excess of ceiling limit in the territories to which
\n\tthe Act applies under Sec.1(2). Section 15 of the Act stipulates for
\n\tceiling limit on future acquisition and a statement to be filed
\n\tbefore the competent authority within three months of acquisition.
\n\tAs the area of the land purchased by the petitioners as per their
\n\town contentions  is more than the ceiling limit as provided under
\n\tSec.4 of the Act, filing of statement is a necessity. They failed to
\n\tdo so and after repeal of the Act, they approached the Court with an
\n\toblique motive. Moreover, the pre-requisite condition of notice
\n\tunder Sec.26 before transfer of vacant land is also not fulfilled by
\n\tthe petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above, no notice under Sec.10(5) of the Act was required
\n\tto be issued to the petitioners as they were not the occupants of
\n\tthe said disputed lands. The Competent Authority, therefore, after
\n\tfollowing provisions of Sec.10(6) of the Act, rightly decided the
\n\tmatter which has been confirmed by the Revenue Authority of the
\n\tState Government  and notification has been published in the
\n\tOfficial Gazette and, therefore, no interference is called for in
\n\tthe said findings arrived at by both the authorities.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tfar as the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Advocate for
\n\tthe petitioners are concerned, there cannot be any dispute regarding
\n\tthe principles laid down therein. However, facts of those cases are
\n\ttotally different from facts of the present case and hence,
\n\tpetitioners would not be entitled to any benefit out of those
\n\tjudgments.\n<\/p>\n
Reliance
\n\tis placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court (Coram:
\n\tS.J.Mukhopadhaya, CJ & Akil Kureshi,J.) rendered in Letters
\n\tPaten Appeal No.1151
\n\tof 2009 in Special Civil Application No.8257 of 1991 with Civil
\n\tApplication No.6008 of 2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1151 of 2009
\n\twherein it has been held in paras 10, 11, 12 and 13 as under:\n<\/p>\n
“10.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the materials on record, as already noted, as per the official
\n\trecords, after declaration of 602 sq. mtrs. of land  of the
\n\tpetitioner as excess vacant land by the competent authority as well
\n\tas the Urban Land Tribunal, steps were taken to take possession
\n\tthereof after formally declaring that said land is vested in the
\n\tGovernment. After issuing notice under Section 10(5) of the Ceiling
\n\tAct, in presence of Panch witnesses, possession of 602 sq. mtrs. of
\n\tland was taken over on 10.2.1992 and the Panchnama was also produced
\n\twhich is part of record of these proceedings. Except for the bare
\n\twords of the appellant, there is nothing on record to suggest that
\n\tofficial records do not reflect the true and correct position. We
\n\thave  nothing to go by to hold that the said record is either
\n\tinaccurate or fabricated. In case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v.
\n\tState of Gujarat and others reported in (1998) 4 Supreme Court
\n\tCases, 387, the Apex Court observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “13. The High
\nCourt held that actual physical possession of the land subject
\nmatter of\t the acquisition  proceeding was not handed over  to the
\nappellant while it was the contention of the  appellant as  well   as
\nthe  State  Government that possession of  the land was handed over
\nto L&T Ltd. on July 5, 1989.  At the  time the  possession was
\ntaken  over  a Panchanama was prepared duly witnessed by two farmers
\nof the Village Magdalla and singed by the Circle Officer evidencing
\nhanding over  of possession  and also  by M.H.Adhikari  an officer of
\n the L&T  Ltd. for  taking over  possession. The possession
\nreceipt  of the  same date  duly  signed  by the Circle Officer and
\nthe officer of  the L&T Ltd. was given. L&T Ltd. thus took
\npossession of the land in presence of the panchas.  Panchanama
\nrecites that   both  the   witnesses (Panchas)  had been  intimated
\nin  advance  by  Mamlatdar Choryasi and  that possession of the
\nconcerned land that day taken over  in their presence by the Circle
\nOfficer and that the land  was an  open spot and there was no
\nconstruction or crops grown  therein. Possession  of the land was
\ntaken over along with  the trees  standing thereon.  As  noted
\nabove, possession was thereafter delivered to the representative of
\nthe L&T  Ltd. at  that time itself. In the High Court it was
\ncontended that no actual physical possession of the land had been
\ntaken.  The petitioners filed affidavits of the Panchas who had
\nsigned the  Panchanama. In  these  affidavits they stated that  they
\nwere called to the office of the Panchayat and that  their signatures
\nwere obtained on blank papers and that they  had not  gone to  the
\nsita  and that neither the landlord was present not the actual
\npossession was delivered to the acquiring body. Ready with  these
\naffidavits High Court noticed  from the recitation in the Panchanama
\nthat it was nowhere  mentioned that the panchas had gone to the site
\nfrom the  office of  the panchayat. It was not disputed that in the
\nrevenue records it was L&T Ltd.  who was  shown in possession of
\nthe land.  Affidavits of the Panchas filed in the High  Court which
\ncontained statements contrary to what was recorded  in the
\nPanchanama  and  against the  revenue entries are  quite meaningless
\nand in our opinion High Court unnecessarily put  undue reliance  on
\nthe  same. High  Court could not  convert itself into a revenue court
\nand hold that in spite  of the  Panchanama and  the revenue records
\nactual physical possession of the acquired land had not been handed
\nover to  the acquiring body. High Court, in our opinion, has not
\ncorrectly  analysed the  two judgments  of this Court in Balmokand
\nKhatri  Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar vs. State  of
\nPunjab  [1996] 4 SCC 212 and Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D. Bhagwat
\nand Ors.<\/a> [1976] 1 SCC 700 to come to the conclusion that actual
\nphysical possession of the land was not taken over by the State.”\n<\/p>\n
11.
\n\t  Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in approving the
\n\tconclusion of the Learned Single Judge that at the relevant point of
\n\ttime as the record reflects, possession of the excess vacant land
\n\twas taken over by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
12.
\n\t The subsidiary question is whether after the possession was once
\n\ttaken over if the appellant-petitioner reentered the land and may
\n\talso have put up some construction thereon, that by itself would be
\n\tsufficient to ensure lapsing of the proceedings under the Repeal
\n\tAct. A similar question came up before the Division Bench wherein
\n\tfollowing observations were made :\n<\/p>\n
“In view of the
\nabove position of the record, we do not find any case to hold that
\nthe possession of the land was not taken over on 10th
\nOctober, 1991, contrary to affidavits and the records of the State.
\nThe contention of the counsel for the appellants that subsequent
\nrecord suggests actual possession of the appellants is neither here
\nnor there.  If the possession was taken over at the relevant time but
\nsome time thereafter if the appellants reentered into land, such
\npossession would not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the
\nposition of the repeal of the Act.  In the Repeal Act, under Section
\n3 it is provided as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Sec.3   Saving.–\n<\/p>\n
 (1)  The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect —\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tthe vesting of any
\nvacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 10, possession of which
\nhas been taken over the State Government or any person duly
\nauthorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent
\nauthority;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tthe validity of any
\norder granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20 or any
\naction taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment of any court to
\nthe contrary;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tany payment made to
\nthe State Government as a condition for granting exemption under
\nsub-section (1) of Section 20.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tWhere —\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tany land is deemed to
\nhave vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section
\n10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not been taken
\nover by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the
\nState Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and<\/p>\n
(b)\tany amount has been
\npaid by the State Government with respect to such land <\/p>\n
then such land shall not
\nbe restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the
\nState Government.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the language used in
\nsub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, it is clear that the
\nRepeal Act would not apply in a case where the vacant land has vested
\nin the Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act
\nand possession of which has been taken over by the State Government
\nor by an authorized person or by the Competent Authority. Sub-Section
\n(2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act further provides that if any land
\nhas vested in the State Government but possession of which has not
\nbeen taken over by the Government  or the authorized officers of the
\nCompetent Authority, then such land shall not be vested unless
\ncompensation if any paid is refunded.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, for the purpose of
\napplicability of the Repeal Act, crucial question is if the
\nGovernment by taking over possession of the vacant land before the
\nRepeal Act was introduced. If possession of the land has been taken
\nover by the Government before the Repeal Act but the declarant
\nre-enters the land, such unauthorized possession on the date of
\nintroduction of the Repeal Act cannot be the basis to hold that the
\nULC proceedings have lapsed.”\n<\/p>\n
13.
\n\t In view of the above discussion, we find that Learned Single Judge
\n\tcommitted no error in holding that possession of the excess vacant
\n\tland was taken over by the Government long before the introduction
\n\tof the Repeal Act. Existence of few shops thereon would in our
\n\topinion not change the position.”\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe present case, as stated in para 5.2 of the affidavit-in-reply,
\n\tafter following all necessary procedures as provided under the Act,
\n\ta declaration was given in the Official Gazette on 30-4-1992 as per
\n\tSec.10(3) of the Act that the land in question was vested absolutely
\n\tin the Government free from all encumberances. Ultimately,
\n\tpossession thereof was taken over under Sec.10(6) after giving
\n\tnotice as provided under Sec.10(5) of the Act, in presence of
\n\tpanchas on 16-3-1993. Once notification is issued in the Official
\n\tGazette and notice to persons whose names are mentioned in form No.1
\n\thas already been given as provided under the Act, there is no
\n\tquestion of giving individual notice to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the
\n\torders passed by both the authorities and the present petition is
\n\trequired to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule is
\n\tdischarged. Status-quo granted earlier stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(M.D.SHAH,J.)<\/p>\n
radhan<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 2011 Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4483\/1999 11\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4483 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may […]<\/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-47151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 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\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-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=\"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-08T21:47:41+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T21:47:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3137,\"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\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T21:47:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 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":"Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 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\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-08T21:47:41+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T21:47:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011"},"wordCount":3137,"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\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011","name":"Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T21:47:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalpatbhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dalpatbhai vs State on 10 February, 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\/47151","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=47151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47151\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}