{"id":62183,"date":"2011-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-11T13:41:21","modified_gmt":"2018-08-11T08:11:21","slug":"labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,<\/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\/14878\/2011\t 6\/ 6\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. 14878 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nLABHUBEN\nJAYMALBHAI NADODA - Petitioner\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY &amp; 3 - Respondents\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nSATYEN B RAWAL for Petitioner: \nMR. HK PATEL, LD. AGP for\nRespondent: 1\n \n\nNone\nfor Respondents : 2 -\n4. \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 S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/11\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner &#8211; Revision<br \/>\n\tApplicant in Revision Application No. 7 of 2003 before the<br \/>\n\tRespondent no.2 under the provisions of Section 211 of Bombay Land<br \/>\n\tRevenue Code has approached this Court under Article 226 of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India, challenging the order passed by Respondent<br \/>\n\tno.2 on 9\/5\/2011, rejecting the Revision Application for the reasons<br \/>\n\tstated there under.\n<\/p>\n<p>Facts<br \/>\n\tin brief, as narrated by the petitioner in the memo of the petition<br \/>\n\tcould be set out as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner purchased parcel of agricultural land in village<br \/>\nKholadiya, bearing survey no. 45, admeasuring 5 acres 35 gunthas by<br \/>\nexecuting sale deed on 15\/4\/1986 after due inquiry as to the<br \/>\nownership of the vendor of the land in question. The vendor who<br \/>\nhappened to be heirs of one Shri Babar Talshi Kalyan informed the<br \/>\npetitioner that they are all co-owners of the said parcel of the land<br \/>\nand assured the petitioner that there is no defect, charge or<br \/>\nencumbrance on the land, and it was informed to the petitioner that<br \/>\nin case of any such difficulty or defect they would be liable for the<br \/>\nsame. Relying upon such assurance the petitioner purchased said land<br \/>\nas the petitioner was satisfied about legal ownership of the land<br \/>\nvesting in the heirs of Babar Talshi Kalyan. The land was required to<br \/>\nbe improved upon and the petitioner put his     sweat for improving<br \/>\nthe land in question. The petitioner was unfortunate as the<br \/>\nproceedings were initiated by Dy. Collector in case No.2  of 2000 for<br \/>\nbreach of condition in respect of land in question as the land was<br \/>\n&#8216;Bhudhan Land&#8221; allotted to Babar Talshi Kalyan and as such it<br \/>\nwas non-alienable in any manner. The petitioner had to take up<br \/>\nproceedings for justifying her possession in the land but ultimately<br \/>\nproceedings culminated against her and she had to prefer revision<br \/>\napplication contending that as per the Government Resolution dated<br \/>\n16\/3\/1982 and especially Clause 4(1) of the  said Resolution  she had<br \/>\na right to be in possession and her possession was required to be<br \/>\nregularized as it was &#8216;first mistake&#8217; of &#8216;Khatedar&#8217; which is required<br \/>\nto be condoned  in light of the provision  mentioned there under. The<br \/>\nrevision authority after  recording its reasons rejected the same.<br \/>\nBeing aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 9\/5\/2011 passed<br \/>\nby the revision authority the petition is preferred under Article 226<br \/>\nof the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\n\tadvocate for the petitioner contended that there exists no dispute<br \/>\n\twith  regard to the fact that  the land in question has not been<br \/>\n\talienable in any manner nor was there any dispute being petitioner<br \/>\n\tmerely a purchaser. However when the petitioner has heavily relied<br \/>\n\tupon condition no. 4(1) of resolution dated 16\/3\/1982 it was a duty<br \/>\n\tcast upon the revision authority to deal with the said contention in<br \/>\n\tan appropriate manner. Non-dealing with the said contention has<br \/>\n\trendered the order illegal and therefore same is required to be<br \/>\n\tquashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate for the petitioner submitted that irrespective of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner&#8217;s right flowing from resolution dated 16\/3\/1982 the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has preferred representation to concerned Collector for<br \/>\n\tre-grant of land and the same has not been decided. In case if the<br \/>\n\tCourt is not inclined to entertain this petition, then, atleast<br \/>\n\tthere could be a direction to the concerned Collector for deciding<br \/>\n\tthe representation in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the averments<br \/>\n\tand narration mentioned on page-24 in the compilation and contended<br \/>\n\tthat this contentions are not being dealt with by respondent<br \/>\n\trevision authority and therefore the impugned order is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tCourt is unable to accept the submissions of learned advocate for<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n<p>a)\tThis<br \/>\nCourt is of the considered view that though this petition is styled<br \/>\nto have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\nessentially it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia only, as there exists no averment which could have been relied<br \/>\nupon by the petitioner to indicate that the petition is filed under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of  India. However, assuming for the<br \/>\nsake of examining for holding that the petition is maintainable under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, then also the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nchallenge to the order and the prayers are required to be examined,<br \/>\nwhich would go to show that the petitioner could not make out a case<br \/>\nfor interference even under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.<br \/>\nThe petitioner did not establish any right much less any fundamental<br \/>\nright to hold on the land in question as the petitioner purchased the<br \/>\nland contrary to the policy of the State for granting the land to<br \/>\nthose who are qualified to have the land for cultivating it<br \/>\npersonally. If such a land is being alienated and the petitioner has<br \/>\npurchased the land, then, assuming for the examination that it is<br \/>\npurchased bonafide, then also, that bonafide purchase should not<br \/>\ninure any right in the petitioner so as to continue the possession of<br \/>\nthe land as the purchase itself was per se<br \/>\nillegal and contrary to the prevision of law. Any purchase which is<br \/>\nillegal and contrary to provisions of law could not have been made<br \/>\nbasis for seeking any relief much less relief under Article 226 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India, that being an extra ordinary jurisdiction,<br \/>\nsame would  not be available to a person who is basing their claim on<br \/>\nany illegality. Thus even if the petition is being considered from<br \/>\nthe angle of Article 226 of the Constitution<br \/>\nof India, then also the  petitioner has not made out any case for<br \/>\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n<p>b)\tNow<br \/>\nlet us examine the petition from the point of view of Article 227 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India also. The Court needs to be mindful of the<br \/>\nfact that Article 227 of the Constitution has inherent limitations of<br \/>\nexamining the order impugned. Non-dealing of some of he contentions<br \/>\nwith regard to &#8216;first mistake&#8217; on the part of the occupant based upon<br \/>\nG.R. Dated 16\/3\/1982 is of no avail to the petitioner, as simple<br \/>\nreading of the GR would go to show that that said provision inures in<br \/>\nfavour of the original grantee and not to the one who has goaded or<br \/>\npersuaded to grant in alienating the land by committing condition  of<br \/>\nallotment. The fact that the petitioner is a purchaser and not an<br \/>\noriginal allotee and therefore not a &#8216;Khatedar&#8217;, is not disputed.<br \/>\nTherefore, in my view the petitioner did not have any right to invoke<br \/>\nthe provision of resolution dated 16\/3\/1982. The petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nadvocate has relied upon resolution dated 16\/3\/1982 and the provision<br \/>\nof para-4 (1) to indicate that this alienation was first alienation<br \/>\nand therefore she had a right to hold on the land. This contention<br \/>\nis wholly misconceived and deserves rejection in view of the fact<br \/>\nthat petitioner could not have any claim to be a person eligible<br \/>\nunder that provision as petitioner was not an allotee. The petitioner<br \/>\nwas rather a person who had goaded the allotee in committing the<br \/>\nbreach of condition of allotment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, the petition being bereft of merits deserves rejection<br \/>\n\tand is accordingly rejected. However, there shall be no order as to<br \/>\n\tcosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                            [<br \/>\nS.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]<\/p>\n<p>\/vgn<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 2011 Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/14878\/2011 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14878 of 2011 ================================================= LABHUBEN JAYMALBHAI NADODA &#8211; Petitioner Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY &amp; 3 &#8211; Respondents ================================================= [&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-62183","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 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\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-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=\"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-11T08:11:21+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-11T08:11:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1208,\"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\\\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-11T08:11:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 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":"Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 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\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-11T08:11:21+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-11T08:11:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011"},"wordCount":1208,"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\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011","name":"Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-11T08:11:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/labhuben-vs-state-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Labhuben vs State on 9 November, 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\/62183","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=62183"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62183\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}