{"id":5104,"date":"2011-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011"},"modified":"2015-08-13T19:15:16","modified_gmt":"2015-08-13T13:45:16","slug":"gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Honourable Dave,<\/div>\n
  \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\nLPA\/2863\/2010\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 2863 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nMISC.CIVIL\nAPPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 1796 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7494 of 1993\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 33 of 2011\n \n\nIn\nLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2863 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE\n \n \n=============================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=============================================\n \n\nGANGABEN\nWD\/O CHHAGANBHAI PATEL - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n============================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR MA KHARADI for Appellant(s)\n: 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4  \nMR PRANAV TRIVEDI ASST. GOVERNMENT\nPLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 2 -\n3. \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\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE)<\/p>\n
1.\tThe
\nappellants (original petitioners) have filed this appeal under Clause
\n15 of Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 8.10.2010 passed
\nby learned Single Judge in Misc. Civil Application No.1796 of 2010.
\nThe above application for review came to be disposed of by correcting
\na fact noticed by leaned Single Judge about nature of perennially
\nirrigated land erroneously included in the total holding of
\nagricultural land and declaring the land as surplus by the authority
\nunder the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act,
\n1961 (for short “the Act”).\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIt
\nis necessary to refer orders passed by various authorities under the
\nAct namely, Mamlatdar & ALT, Dy. Collector and Gujarat Revenue
\nTribunal under the Act.  As per the record, a finding was given by
\nthe competent authority namely Mamlatdar & ALT and Agricultural
\nLand Tribunal on 24.6.1987 declaring a total of 28 Acres 38 Gunthas
\nof land of the petitioners as surplus, which came to be upheld by the
\nDy. Collector in appeal vide order dated 13.6.1988 and also by the
\nrevisional authority namely, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as per
\ndecision dated 4.7.1992.  Thus, when Special Civil Application No.
\n7494 of 1993 was filed with regard to area of land and ceiling limit,
\nno dispute was raised by the petitioners.  However, various
\ncontentions were raised with regard to applicability of provisions of
\nSections 6(2) and 15 of the Act in the context of the facts about
\nnature of agricultural land as defined under the Act.  One of the
\nmain contention raised by the petitioners before learned Judge was
\nabout land admeasuring around 18 Acres 37 Gunthas was transferred by
\nhim in favour of his son in the year 1970 and his wife, i.e. mother
\nof his son, remained as guardian to look after the land.  It is not
\nnecessary for us at this stage to consider various facts in details
\nalong with other arguments of learned advocate canvassed before the
\nlearned Single Judge in the above writ petition, since after
\nconsidering provisions of Sections 6(2) and Section 15 of the Act and
\ntransfer of the land admeasuring 18 Acres 37 Gunthas prior to the
\nspecified date and further different types of the land held by the
\nholder, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on 22.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
2.1.\tThe
\nabove order of learned Single Judge was challenged before Division
\nBench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1483 of 2008 and various
\ncontentions were raised and Division Bench noticed two main
\ncontentions and found no merit in any of the contentions raised by
\nthe appellants but upon a request made by leaned advocate for the
\nappellants to prefer a review application before the learned Single
\nJudge with regard to an erroneous calculation of perennially
\nirrigated land, permission was granted to withdraw the appeal and
\norder was passed accordingly.  However, the above order dated
\n30.12.2008 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1483 of 2008 was sought
\nto be reviewed by filing Misc. Civil Application No.2980 of 2009 and
\nDivision Bench of this Court having gone through the record and in
\nabsence of error apparent on the face of the record dismissed said
\nreview application.  However, in terms of liberty reserved to the
\nappellants as per earlier order dated 30.12.2008 passed in Letters
\nPatent Appeal No. 1483 of 2008 the appellants preferred the review
\napplication being Misc. Civil Application No.1796 of 2010 before the
\nlearned Single Judge which came to be disposed of as stated herein
\nabove after due consideration of various aspects and noticing the
\nfact about 1 Acre of land approximately was not getting perennially
\nwater supply and authorities under the Act were directed to correct
\ntheir orders about declaration of surplus land accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Kharadi, learned advocate for the appellants reiterated all
\nsubmissions canvassed before learned Single Judge in an application
\nfor review as well as contentions raised in appeal in which liberty
\nwas reserved to the appellants to prefer review application and
\nfurther contended that while reviewing the order, learned Single
\nJudge again has not addressed to very aspects of nature of
\nperennially irrigated land in the context of Canal Certificate issued
\nby the authority in the command area of irrigation project and before
\nthe competent authority Canal Officer was not cross examined.
\nTherefore, order passed in review application impugned in this appeal
\nsuffers from basic error and when all the authorities namely,
\nCompetent, Appellate and Revisional under the Act failed to
\nappreciate above factual error and also depriving the
\nappellants\/petitioners of right to cross-examine Canal Officer so as
\nto unearth truth deserves to be corrected by this Court.  According
\nto learned advocate for the appellants provisions of Sections 6(2)
\nand 15 of the Act are not interpreted in the context of factual
\nbackground of the case and thus, learned Judge committed an error
\nbarring a minor correction in confirming the orders passed by the
\nauthorities below in declaring the land of the petitioners as
\nsurplus.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tHeard
\nlearned AGP for the respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tHaving
\nheard learned advocate for the parties and on perusal of the record
\nalong with provisions of the Act, we are of the opinion that there is
\nno merit in any of the contentions of learned advocate for the
\nappellants canvassed before us inasmuch as, this appeal is another
\nattempt in succession to convince this Court about a case on fact as
\nwell as on law which is non existent at the stage of appeal.  That,
\ndeclaration of surplus land under the Act was made by the competent
\nauthority after considering all relevant aspects including the nature
\nof land held by the appellants and it came to be confirmed in appeal
\nas well as in revision and, therefore, finding of fact of total
\nholding of agricultural land and declaring surplus land under the Act
\nvirtually became final.  Against concurrent findings of fact a writ
\npetition preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed after
\nconsidering the contentions raised therein in the context of
\nprovisions of Sections 6(2) and 15 of the Act.  The learned Judge in
\nthe decision dated 22.10.2008 also noticed transfer of land by the
\npetitioner in favour of his son as early as in 1970 and procedure
\nprescribed of computation of surplus land in Section 15 which
\nprovided inclusion of the land transferred or partitioned by such
\nperson after 15th Day of January, 1959 but before the
\ncommencement of the Act and the land admeasuring of 18 Acres and 37
\nGunthas was transferred in favour of a minor son was in the year
\n1970.  The learned Single Judge has also summarized requirement of
\nsub-section (2) of Section 6 but due to inadvertence though stated,
\nthe above provisions could not be reproduced but obligation of the
\nauthority to consider various parameters while computing surplus have
\nbeen stated in no uncertain terms.  However, in Letters Patent Appeal
\nwhich was preferred against the above order a Division bench
\npermitted the appellants to prefer a review application on a limited
\naspect of nature and measurement of perennially irrigated land and
\nthat was the factor to be considered in review in the context of
\nfactual finding by the authorities below.  In the review application,
\nlearned Single Judge while reviewing the order once again undertook
\nscrutiny of factual aspect and noticed that 1 Acre land of block
\nNo.202 was not receiving perennial water supply.  In view of the
\nabove finding, learned Single Judge modified earlier judgment dated
\n22.10.2008 to the above extent and orders passed by the authorities
\nbelow also stood modified and the petitioner was granted an
\nopportunity to select retainable part of the land as per the Rules
\nand to apply to the Mamlatdar accordingly.  In view of the above
\nfinding on fact and relevant provisions of the Act as under:\n<\/p>\n
Section
\n6(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1961 reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“6(2).\t\tWhere
\nan individual, who holds land,is a member of a family [not being a
\njoint family which consists of the individual and his spouse (or more
\nthan one spouse) and their minor sons and minor unmarried daughters,
\nirrespective of whether the family also includes any major son and]
\nland is also separately held by the individual’s spouse or minor
\nchildren, then the land held by the individual and the said members
\nof the individual’s family [excluding major sons, if any] shall be
\ngrouped together for the purposes of this Act and the provisions of
\nthis Act shall apply to the total land so grouped together as if such
\nland has been held by one person.”\n<\/p>\n
15.\tComputation
\nof surplus land.- The extent of surplus land, if any, held by any
\nperson [xxx] shall be computed on the basis of the total land held by
\nsuch persons[xxx];\n<\/p>\n
Provided
\nthat the total land so held shall include-\n<\/p>\n
(a)
\nwhere such person holds in addition to the land held by him
\nindividually as owner or tenant, a share in the land held by a joint
\nfamily, an area of land equivalent to his share in the land which
\nsuch joint family, is entitled to hold under section 6, <\/p>\n
(b)
\nland, if any, transferred or sub-divided by or on behalf of such
\nperson in contravention of section 7, and<\/p>\n
(c)
\nland, if any, transferred or partitioned by such person after the
\n15th day of January, 1959 but before the commencement of
\nthis Act [or after 14th January, 1971 but before the
\nspecified date], and in respect of which no application for a
\ndeclaration under section 8 was made or any application made under
\nsection 8 has been rejected.”\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn
\nview of conjoint reading of Sections 6(2) and 15 of the Act transfer
\nof land in question in favour of a minor son in 1970 by the
\nappellants would have to be included as a land in the total holding
\nof agricultural land and declaration of surplus land accordingly by
\nthe authorities below cannot be said to be illegal, and, therefore,
\non merit also we are convinced that no error appears on the record
\nwhile rejecting the petition as well as review application of the
\nappellants.  Thus, exercising powers by learned Single Judge in a
\nreview jurisdiction cannot be said to be in any manner contrary to
\nsettled law on the issue and an error apparent on the face of the
\nrecord as noticed by the learned Judge about 1 Acre of land in block
\nNo.202 was considered and the order was corrected accordingly by
\nissuing proper directions.  In addition to above, earlier, Division
\nBench of this court in order dated 30.12.2008 passed in Letters
\nPatent Appeal No.1483 of 2008 did not find merit in any other
\ncontention.  We do not find any force in any of the submissions of
\nlearned advocate for the appellants including the certificate issued
\nby Canal Authority and opportunity was not made available to the
\npetitioners to cross-examine officer issuing Canal Certificate are in
\nrealm of re appreciation of evidence at the stage of appeal and we do
\nfind that while reviewing the order learned Judge has done complete
\njustice to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tNo
\ninterference is called for.  Letters Patent Appeal is rejected with
\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\nview of the above order, no order on Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n
[S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,
\nCJ.]<\/p>\n
[ANANT
\nS. DAVE, J.]<\/p>\n
\/\/smita\/\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 2011 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Honourable Dave, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/2863\/2010 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2863 of 2010 In MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION – FOR REVIEW No. 1796 of 2010 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. […]<\/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-5104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGangaben vs State on 24 August, 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\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-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=\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-13T13:45:16+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-13T13:45:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1836,\"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\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-13T13:45:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 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":"Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 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\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-13T13:45:16+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-13T13:45:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011"},"wordCount":1836,"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\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011","name":"Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-13T13:45:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaben-vs-state-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gangaben vs State on 24 August, 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\/5104","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=5104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}