{"id":73777,"date":"2008-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008"},"modified":"2017-06-03T08:54:17","modified_gmt":"2017-06-03T03:24:17","slug":"vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/3506\/2008\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\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 3506 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n \n\nCROSS\nOBJECTION (Stamp) No.79 of 2005\n \n\n \n======================================\n\n\n \n\nSPL.LAQ\nOFFICER AND ANOTHER \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nVALIBHAI\nS\/O RASULBEN AND ANOTHER\n \n\n====================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 2. \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,\n1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3,\n1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.3.6, 1.3.7,1.3.8\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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tBy<br \/>\nway of this appeal, the appellants have challenged judgment and award<br \/>\ndated 27-2-2002 passed by 2nd Extra Assistant Judge and<br \/>\nSpecial Judge (LAR), Ahmedabad Rural in Land Acquisition Case<br \/>\nNos.640\/1995 to 652\/1995, whereby additional compensation of Rs.79<br \/>\nper sq.mtr. was awarded over and above the amount awarded by Special<br \/>\nLand Acquisition Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tBy<br \/>\nfiling Cross-Objections claimants have claimed that they should have<br \/>\nbeen awarded interest from the date on which the possession of the<br \/>\nland was acquired and not from the date of publication of<br \/>\nnotification issued under Section 4 of the Act and that they should<br \/>\nalso have been awarded interest on the amount awarded under Section<br \/>\n23 (1-A) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset it is submitted that the issue involved in this appeal<br \/>\nwould be squarely<br \/>\ncovered by the decision of  Division Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt dated 10th May 2007 passed in First Appeal No.3101<br \/>\nof 2004 and allied matters, wherein this Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>?S8.\tThe<br \/>\ncontention that in view of considerable distance between the lands<br \/>\nacquired from Village: Telav and the lands acquired from Village:<br \/>\nShela, the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the<br \/>\nlands of Village: Shela should not have been relied upon by the<br \/>\nReference Court for the purpose of determining the market value of<br \/>\nthe lands acquired from Village: Telav, cannot be accepted. On<br \/>\nappreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference<br \/>\nCourt has held in paragraph 23 of the impugned award that there is a<br \/>\nvery little distance between Village: Telav and Village: Shela. On<br \/>\nre-appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is<br \/>\nof the opinion that the finding recorded by the Reference Court that<br \/>\nlast survey number of the lands acquired from Village: Telav was just<br \/>\nadjoining the first survey number of the lands acquired from Village:<br \/>\nShela is eminently just and could not be demonstrated to be erroneous<br \/>\nby the learned Assistant Government Pleader. It is well to remember<br \/>\nthat the canal constructed under Narmada Project is coming from<br \/>\nVillage: Godhavi to Village: Shela after which it is entering into<br \/>\nVillage: Telav, which means that the lands acquired from Village:<br \/>\nTelav were situated quite near the lands of Village: Shela. Relevancy<br \/>\nof the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of<br \/>\nVillage: Shela stands firmly established by the testimony of witness<br \/>\nMomin Gulam Ahemad, who was examined on behalf of the claimants at<br \/>\nExhibit 41. It was asserted by this witness in his testimony that the<br \/>\nlands of Village: Telav were adjoining to the lands of Village:<br \/>\nShela. It was also mentioned by the said witness that even Village:<br \/>\nSanand was situated just near the lands, which were acquired from<br \/>\nVillage: Telav. This assertion made by the witness for the claimants<br \/>\ncould hardly be disputed by the Acquiring Authorities during the<br \/>\ncourse of cross examination of this witness. On appreciation of the<br \/>\nevidence adduced before it, the Reference Court has made following<br \/>\npertinent observations in paragraph 31 of the impugned judgment:\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\nthe evidence on record indicates that the lands which were subject<br \/>\nmatter of previous awards of Shela, as discussed hereinabove, are in<br \/>\nthe vicinity and in reasonable proximity to the lands acquired in the<br \/>\npresent case. As observed earlier, a fertility and yield is also<br \/>\nsimilar, but at the same time the advantage which the village Shela<br \/>\nhas got is also having same type of advantage to the village Telav<br \/>\nbecause from the middle of the village Telav, Surkhej-Sanand Viramgam<br \/>\nhighway is passing and Sanand Railway Station and market Yard is only<br \/>\n1 km away from Telav and therefore there is also development in<br \/>\nvillage Telav and also considering the fact that there is a Scheme of<br \/>\nSephrani bungalows and biggest water park viz. Goyal Water World, the<br \/>\nTelav has also same type of advantage and considering this type of<br \/>\nadvantage its potential value can be considered and can be placed on<br \/>\nthe same footing as of Shela and therefore in my opinion reliance can<br \/>\nbe placed on the award of the village Shela which is also based on<br \/>\nthe judgment of village Godhavi confirmed by the Hon&#8217;ble High court.<br \/>\nAs discussed hereinabove, village Shela is just adjoining to the<br \/>\nSurkhej-Viramgam highway and also considering the fact that the<br \/>\nboundaries of village Shela and Telav are touching to each other and<br \/>\nconsidering the fact that Viramgam highway is passing from the middle<br \/>\nof the Telav and therefore in all these circumstances I am of the<br \/>\nopinion that it is required to place reliance on the previous award<br \/>\nof village Shela for the purpose of determination of the market value<br \/>\nof the land acquired in the present case.??\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nlearned Assistant Government Pleader could not point out to this<br \/>\nCourt as to how the findings recorded by the Reference Court in<br \/>\nparagraph 31, which are quoted above, are erroneous.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tOn<br \/>\nre-appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is<br \/>\nof the opinion that the Reference Court was justified in placing<br \/>\nreliance upon the previous award of the Reference Court relating to<br \/>\nthe lands of Village: Shela for the purpose of determining the market<br \/>\nvalue of the lands acquired in the instant cases. It is well settled<br \/>\nthat previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of a<br \/>\nvillage, which has attained finality, can be relied upon for the<br \/>\npurpose of determining market value of similar lands acquired from<br \/>\nthe adjoining village.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn<br \/>\nre-appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is<br \/>\nof the opinion that the correct findings of facts have been recorded<br \/>\nin paragraph 31 of the judgment, with which this Court fully concurs.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe<br \/>\ncontention that no development had taken place in Village: Telav and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the<br \/>\nlands of Village: Shela should not have been made the basis for the<br \/>\npurpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired from<br \/>\nVillage: Telav, is devoid of merits. It may be stated that the<br \/>\nwitness for the claimants has stated in terms that his Village: Telav<br \/>\nat the relevant point of time was fully developed and had facilities<br \/>\nsuch as; telephone, primary schools, high schools, dairy, cooperative<br \/>\nsocieties, agricultural cooperative societies, etc. What was asserted<br \/>\nby the witness was that in his village, biggest water-park of Asia<br \/>\nwas situated and that the lands were plotted for the purpose of<br \/>\nresidences. It was mentioned by the witness that Village: Telav was<br \/>\nsituated at a distance of 1 Kilometre away from Sanand Railway<br \/>\nStation whereas the market-yard was also at a distance of 1 Kilometre<br \/>\naway from the village. The assertion made by the witness that the<br \/>\nlands of Village: Telav were costly than the lands of Village: Shela<br \/>\ncould not be disputed by the Acquiring Authorities during the course<br \/>\nof his cross-examination. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the<br \/>\nlands acquired from Village: Telav had potential value and could have<br \/>\nbeen used either for industrial purpose or commercial purpose or<br \/>\nresidential purpose. Once the potentiality of the lands situated at<br \/>\nVillage: Telav is taken into consideration, the compensation awarded<br \/>\nto the claimants at the rate of Rs.85\/- per square metre on the basis<br \/>\nof the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of<br \/>\nVillage: Shela wherein the claimants were awarded compensation at the<br \/>\nrate of Rs.85\/- per square metre, cannot be considered to be on<br \/>\nhigher side so as to warrant interference of this Court in the<br \/>\npresent group of appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIt<br \/>\nmay be stated that though ample opportunity was afforded to the<br \/>\nAcquiring Authorities to adduce the evidence to refute the claim made<br \/>\nby the claimants, no evidence was led to establish that the claimants<br \/>\nwere not entitled to enhanced compensation on the basis of the<br \/>\nprevious award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of<br \/>\nVillage: Shela. Except producing indexes indicating the instances of<br \/>\nsale, which had taken place in the last five years, no evidence could<br \/>\nbe produced by the Acquiring Authorities to meet the case advanced by<br \/>\nthe claimants. Though the witness examined on behalf of the Acquiring<br \/>\nAuthorities stated that the relevant factors were taken into<br \/>\nconsideration by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before<br \/>\ndetermining the market value of the lands acquired from Village:<br \/>\nTelav, relevancy of the particulars mentioned in the indexes could<br \/>\nnot be stated or proved by the said witness.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tOn<br \/>\nre-appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is<br \/>\nof the opinion that correct findings of facts have been recorded by<br \/>\nthe Reference Court to which well-settled principles of law have been<br \/>\napplied. The lengthy judgment running into roughly 31 pages has dealt<br \/>\nwith each and every aspect of the matter and rightly determined the<br \/>\nmarket value of the lands acquired from Village: Telav. The learned<br \/>\nAssistant Government Pleader could not persuade this Court to take a<br \/>\nview different than the one taken by the Reference Court on<br \/>\nappreciation of the evidence adduced before it. Therefore, the<br \/>\nappeals, which lack merits, deserve to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tComing<br \/>\nto the Cross Objections filed by the claimants, this Court finds that<br \/>\nthe claim made by the claimants that they should have been awarded<br \/>\ninterest from the date of taking over possession of the acquired<br \/>\nlands, which is prior to the date of publication of notification<br \/>\nissued under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be accepted in view of<br \/>\nthe decision of the Supreme Court in R.L.Jain (D) by <a href=\"\/doc\/1890459\/\">L.R. vs.<br \/>\nD.D.A. &amp; Ors., AIR<\/a> 2004 SC 1904.\n<\/p>\n<p>However,<br \/>\nthe claim advanced by the claimants in their Cross-Objections that<br \/>\nthey should have been awarded interest on the amount found payable<br \/>\nunder Section 23(1-A) of the Act deserves to be upheld in view of the<br \/>\ndecision rendered in <a href=\"\/doc\/531626\/\">Sunder vs. Union of India,<\/a> 2001 (3) G.L.H.<br \/>\n446 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the person<br \/>\nentitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on<br \/>\nthe aggregate amount including solatium. Therefore, the<br \/>\nCross-Objections filed by the claimants will have to be accepted in<br \/>\npart.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tFor<br \/>\nthe foregoing reasons, all the appeals fail and are dismissed. The<br \/>\nCross Objections filed by the claimants are accepted in part and it<br \/>\nis held that the claimants would be entitled to get interest on the<br \/>\naggregate amount including the amount awarded under Section 23(1-A)<br \/>\nof the Act. There shall be no orders as to costs. The Registry is<br \/>\ndirected to draw decree in terms of this judgment immediately.??\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tSince<br \/>\nmatter of same group was decided by this Court vide judgment dated<br \/>\n10-5-2007 passed in First Appeal No.3101 of 2004, this appeal will<br \/>\nalso be governed by the observations made in said order.<br \/>\nAccordingly, this appeal is dismissed.  However, Cross-Objections<br \/>\nfiled by the claimants are partly allowed by holding that the<br \/>\nclaimants will be entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount<br \/>\nincluding the amount awarded under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. There<br \/>\nshall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(K.S.Jhaveri,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>*malek<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court ====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/3506\/2008 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3506 of 2008 With CROSS OBJECTION (Stamp) No.79 of 2005 ====================================== SPL.LAQ OFFICER AND ANOTHER Versus VALIBHAI S\/O RASULBEN AND [&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-73777","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008 - 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\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-03T03:24:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-03T03:24:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1843,\"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\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008\",\"name\":\"====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-03T03:24:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008 - 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\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-03T03:24:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-03T03:24:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008"},"wordCount":1843,"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\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008","name":"====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-03T03:24:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-unknown-on-7-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"====================================== vs Unknown on 7 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/73777","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=73777"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73777\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73777"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73777"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73777"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}