{"id":6345,"date":"2010-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-27T04:27:28","modified_gmt":"2016-10-26T22:57:28","slug":"ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\/6581\/2010\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6581 of 2010\n \n\n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nAJITRAY\nKESHAVLAL JANI &amp; 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THROUGH LD. SECRETARY &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nNV GANDHI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR MR MENGDEY, AGP for Respondent(s) :\n1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \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 M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/07\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\nthe petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or<br \/>\ndirection quashing and setting aside the impugned judgement and order<br \/>\ndated 13\/08\/2009 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in<br \/>\nRevision Application No. TEN.BA 140\/1993 by which the learned<br \/>\ntribunal has dismissed the Revision Application confirming the order<br \/>\npassed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Gandhinagar dated<br \/>\n19\/01\/1992 in Tenancy Appeal No. 18\/1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\ndispute is with respect to the land bearing Survey No.  208\/2<br \/>\nadmeasuring 1 Acre and 28 Gunthas of land situated at village<br \/>\nDolarana, Vasna, Taluka and District Gandhinagar.  At the relevant<br \/>\ntime, Shri Harivallabh Manilal and Shri Ashwinkumar Ramniklal were<br \/>\nthe occupants  and landlords of the land in question.  Respondent no.<br \/>\n2 claimed to be  the tenant (ganotia) of the disputed land in<br \/>\nquestion and his name came to be entered in the revenue record as<br \/>\ntenant.  Since the landlord was minor, the purchase was postponed<br \/>\nwith respect to the suit land considering the provisions of the<br \/>\nBombay Tenancy Act.  Thereafter, respondent no. 2-tenant made an<br \/>\napplication to the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT, Gandhinagar  showing his<br \/>\nwillingness purchase the suit land under Section 32F of the Bombay<br \/>\nTenancy Act, which was registered as Tenancy Case No. 957\/1976.  Vide<br \/>\norder dated 18\/12\/1976, the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT allowed the<br \/>\napplication and passed an order to take action under Section 84 of<br \/>\nthe Bombay Tenancy Act for getting possession of the land in question<br \/>\nand to inform accordingly so that the purchase price can be fixed<br \/>\nunder Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy Act in favour of the tenant<br \/>\nsince the tenant was cultivating the suit  land.  It appears that the<br \/>\noriginal landlord, Shri Ashwinkumar Ramniklal, in whose name the land<br \/>\nin question was mutated in the revenue record as landlord, did not<br \/>\nchallenge the said order.  It appears that after the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Mamlatdar &amp; ALT, Gandhinagar came to be passed, the land in<br \/>\nquestion came  in the share of the father of the petitioners i.e<br \/>\nKeshavlal Jani and his name was mutated in the revenue record vide<br \/>\nmutation entry no. 1228 dated 03\/10\/1977.  The said Shri Keshavlal<br \/>\nJani died  on 15\/08\/1987 and during his life time the said Shri<br \/>\nKeshavlal Jani did not challenge the order passed by the Mamlatdar &amp;<br \/>\nALT dated 18\/12\/1976 in Tenancy Case No. 957\/1976 and in the<br \/>\nmeantime, order came to be passed under Section 32P of the Bombay<br \/>\nTenancy Act.  Thereafter, the petitioners challenged the order passed<br \/>\nby the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT  dated 18\/12\/1976 in Tenancy Case No.<br \/>\n957\/1976 after a period of twelve years before the Deputy Collector,<br \/>\nbeing Tenancy Appeal No. 19\/1989 and the Deputy Collector (Land<br \/>\nReforms), Gandhinagar vide order dated 19\/01\/1992 dismissed the said<br \/>\nappeal on the ground of limitation.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied<br \/>\nwith the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms),<br \/>\nGandhinagar dated 19\/01\/1992 in Tenancy Appeal No. 18\/1989 the<br \/>\npetitioners preferred Revision Application No.  TEN.B.A. 140\/1993<br \/>\nbefore the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the<br \/>\nlearned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide impugned judgement and order<br \/>\ndated 13\/08\/2009 dismissed the said Revision Application confirming<br \/>\nthe order passed by the Deputy Collector.  Hence, the petitioners<br \/>\nhave preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article<br \/>\n227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tShri<br \/>\nN.V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners<br \/>\nhas vehemently submitted that the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as<br \/>\nwell as the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Gandhinagar have<br \/>\nmaterially erred in dismissing the  appeal preferred by the<br \/>\npetitioners on the ground of delay.  It is submitted that as the<br \/>\npetitioners  were prosecuting the proceedings under Section 32P of<br \/>\nthe Bombay Tenancy Act before the State Government, the petitioners<br \/>\ncould not prefer an appeal before the Deputy Collector and<br \/>\nconsidering the above the learned tribunal ought to have entertained<br \/>\nthe application and ought to have decided the same on merits.  Shri<br \/>\nGandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has<br \/>\nsubmitted  that the order passed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT dated<br \/>\n18\/12\/1976 in Tenancy Case No. 957\/1976 is a nullity and non-est as<br \/>\nthe Mamlatdar &amp; ALT could not have passed the order under Section<br \/>\n32F  of the Bombay Tenancy Act as the said application under Section<br \/>\n32F of the Act was not preferred within the period of one year when<br \/>\nthe original landlord attained the age of majority, and, therefore,<br \/>\nit is submitted that the authorities below ought to have considered<br \/>\nthe appeal preferred by the petitioners on merits.  It is submitted<br \/>\nthat even otherwise in view of the subsequent order passed under<br \/>\nSection 32P of the Bombay Tenancy Act and under Section 70(b) of the<br \/>\nBombay Tenancy Act, the order passed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT dated<br \/>\n18\/12\/1976 in Tenancy Case No. 957\/1976 deserves to be quashed and<br \/>\nset aside.  By making the above submissions, it is requested to<br \/>\nadmit\/allow the present Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset, it is required to be noted that the order came to be<br \/>\npassed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT under Section 32F of the Bombay<br \/>\nTenancy Act  in favour of respondent no. 2-tenant as far back as in<br \/>\nthe year 1976 and the said order was not challenged by Shri<br \/>\nAshwinkumar Ramniklal, who was the landlord at the relevant time and<br \/>\nin whose name the land in question was mutated.  At the relevant<br \/>\ntime, it is only Shri  Ashwinkumar Ramniklal-original landlord, who<br \/>\ncould have challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT<br \/>\nunder Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy Act.  It is also required to<br \/>\nbe noted that even thereafter when Shri Keshavlal Jani, father of the<br \/>\npetitioners got the land in partition  and his name was mutated in<br \/>\nthe revenue record in the year 1977, during his life time, he did not<br \/>\nchallenge the order passed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT under Section<br \/>\n32F of the Bombay Tenancy Act and he died in the year 1987.  Only<br \/>\nthereafter, the third generation i.e. the petitioners challenged the<br \/>\norder passed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT after a period of twelve<br \/>\nyears, which was never challenged earlier by the landlord and the<br \/>\nappeal preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed by the<br \/>\nDeputy Collector on the ground of delay of approximately twelve<br \/>\nyears.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe<br \/>\nsubmissions of Shri Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nthe petitioners that as the petitioners were prosecuting the<br \/>\nproceedings under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy Act before the<br \/>\nState Government, the petitioners could not prefer an appeal before<br \/>\nthe Deputy Collector and thereafter when the appeal was preferred,<br \/>\nthe Deputy Collector ought to have  considered the appeal on merits,<br \/>\nhowever, the aforesaid cannot be accepted.  As the order under<br \/>\nSection 32P was passed in the year 1988 and the petitioners<br \/>\nchallenged the order under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy Act in<br \/>\nthe year 1989 and the order passed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT  was<br \/>\npassed in the year 1976, there  is no explanation for the delay<br \/>\nbetween 1976 and 1988.   The learned advocate appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nthe petitioners is not in a position to explain the delay of twelve<br \/>\nyears between 1976 and 1988.  Considering the above huge delay and<br \/>\nmore particularly when the original landlord did not challenge the<br \/>\norder passed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT dated 18\/12\/1976 in Tenancy<br \/>\nCase No. 957\/1976, the Deputy Collector has rightly dismissed the<br \/>\nappeal preferred by the petitioners on the ground of delay, which is<br \/>\nrightly confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide impugned order<br \/>\ndated 13\/08\/2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe<br \/>\nsubmission that in view of the subsequent order passed by the<br \/>\nMamlatdar &amp; ALT under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act,<br \/>\nthe order passed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT dated 18\/12\/1976 in<br \/>\nTenancy Case No. 957\/1976 shall not survive and\/or the same deserves<br \/>\nto be quashed and set aside, cannot  be accepted.  It is to be noted<br \/>\nthat the order passed under Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy Act has<br \/>\nbeen passed in the year 1976 and  the order under Section 70(b) of<br \/>\nthe Bombay Tenancy Act has been passed in the year 1987.  The<br \/>\nsubsequent order cannot nullify the earlier order passed by the<br \/>\nMamlatdar &amp; ALT under Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tNow<br \/>\nso far as the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the order<br \/>\npassed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT dated 18\/12\/1976 in Tenancy Case<br \/>\nNo. 957\/1976 was a nullity and\/or non-est is concerned, at the<br \/>\noutset, it is required to be noted and as stated hereinabove, the<br \/>\nsaid order was never challenged by the earlier landlord and even by<br \/>\nthe father of the petitioners during his life time.  Even a non-est<br \/>\norder and\/or the order, which according to the petitioners, is a<br \/>\nnullity is required to be challenged within the period of limitation<br \/>\nand within the reasonable time.  Under the circumstances, the<br \/>\naforesaid submissions on behalf of the petitioners cannot be<br \/>\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, no<br \/>\nillegality has been committed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal<br \/>\nin dismissing the Revision Application and confirming the order<br \/>\npassed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Gandhinagar, which<br \/>\ncalls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under<br \/>\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tUnder<br \/>\nthe circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and<br \/>\nis accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(M.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>SHAH, J.)<\/p>\n<p>siji<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/6581\/2010 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6581 of 2010 ========================================= AJITRAY KESHAVLAL JANI &amp; 1 &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH LD. SECRETARY &amp; [&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-6345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010 - 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\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-26T22:57:28+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-26T22:57:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1540,\"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\\\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-26T22:57:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010 - 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\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-26T22:57:28+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-26T22:57:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010"},"wordCount":1540,"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\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010","name":"Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-26T22:57:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajitray-vs-state-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajitray vs State on 28 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/6345","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=6345"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6345\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}