{"id":83342,"date":"2008-10-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-08-07T21:11:40","modified_gmt":"2017-08-07T15:41:40","slug":"captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 2921 OF 2006.\n\n     Trimbakrao s\/o Mugutrao Deshmukh,\n     aged 74 years, Occupation Retired\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     Captain, resident of Plot No.1,\n     Gayatro Nagar, Near Ajantha Colony,\n     Jalgaon, Tahsil and District Jalgaon.     ... PETITIONER\n\n                                  VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n     1. The State of Maharashtra,\n                     \n        through Principal Secretary,\n        Revenue Department, Mumbai.\n                    \n     2. The District Collector,\n        District Buldana,\n        Collectorate Office,\n        District Buldana.                     ... RESPONDENTS\n      \n\n\n                                   ....\n   \n\n\n\n     Shri A.K. Choube, Advocate for the petitioner.\n     Shri S.B. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the\n     respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   ....\n\n                                  CORAM : K.J. ROHEE &\n                                         PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
     DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT              : 14TH OCTOBER, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT:24TH OCTOBER, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per K.J. Rohee, J.)<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
               Rule.    Rule is made returnable forthwith.              Heard<\/p>\n
     finally by consent of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     2.        The petitioner has moved the present writ petition<\/p>\n
     under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking<\/p>\n
     direction to the respondents to accord permission to the<\/p>\n
     petitioner to sell the land.\n<\/p>\n
     3.        The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He served with<\/p>\n
     the Indian Army from 11.10.1952 to 31.10.1980. He was made<\/p>\n
     honorary Captain by the President of India. As the petitioner<\/p>\n
     was not having his own land, sometime in June\/July, 1972, he<\/p>\n
     applied for allotment of land to Sub Divisional Officer,<\/p>\n
     Khamgaon for allotment of land. 3.44 HR land, having land<\/p>\n
     revenue of Rs.14\/- in Gat No.152 situated at village Vihigaon,<\/p>\n
     Tahsil Khamgaon, District Buldana, was allotted to the<\/p>\n
     petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     4.        According to the petitioner, he is cultivating the said<\/p>\n
     land continuously. However, because of his old age and as he<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
     is suffering from certain ailments like diabetes and back pain,<\/p>\n
     he is unable to cultivate it personally.      On 09.01.1994, the<\/p>\n
     petitioner applied to the government for permission to sell the<\/p>\n
     said land.     Since the petitioner did not receive any<\/p>\n
     communication from the government, he issued several<\/p>\n
     reminders.     On 01.10.2003, the petitioner received a<\/p>\n
     communication from the respondents informing him that as<\/p>\n
     per the Rules framed on 19.10.2001, the persons who wanted to<\/p>\n
     sell the land allotted to them, have to deposit fifty per cent of<\/p>\n
     the market value and only on this condition being fulfilled,<\/p>\n
     permission to sell land would be granted.             The petitioner<\/p>\n
     brought to the notice of the respondents that the Rules framed<\/p>\n
     on 19.10.2001 would not apply to his case because he had<\/p>\n
     applied for permission to sell his land prior to 19.10.2001. On<\/p>\n
     04.11.2003, the petitioner issued notice to the Collector,<\/p>\n
     Buldana (respondent No.2) under Section 80 of the Code of<\/p>\n
     Civil Procedure narrating all these facts. Along with the said<\/p>\n
     notice, he sent a demand draft for Rs.560\/- as Nazrana being<\/p>\n
     forty times of the land revenue of Rs.14\/-. The notice was<\/p>\n
     however not complied with. Whenever the petitioner made<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
     enquiries with the respondents, no attention was paid to his<\/p>\n
     request. Hence, he filed the present writ petition for directing<\/p>\n
     the respondents to accord permission to sell his land as per the<\/p>\n
     Rules prevailing on the date of his application.\n<\/p>\n
     5.          Respondent No.2 – Collector, Buldana filed affidavit-\n<\/p>\n
     in-reply. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner kept the<\/p>\n
     land barren during some seasons. According to respondent<\/p>\n
     No.2, the petitioner applied before the Sub Divisional Officer,<\/p>\n
     Khamgaon on 28.02.1997 for according permission to sell land<\/p>\n
     granted to him. Respondent No.2 made enquiries into the said<\/p>\n
     application and submitted his proposal to respondent No.1 on<\/p>\n
     28.09.2004. It is further contended by respondent No.2 that<\/p>\n
     after the petitioner made application to Sub Divisional Officer,<\/p>\n
     Khamgaon on 28.02.1997, the Sub Divisional Officer submitted<\/p>\n
     his report to respondent No.2 on 15.01.1998. As there were<\/p>\n
     certain deficiencies in the proposal of the Sub Divisional<\/p>\n
     Officer, after removal of those discrepancies, the proposal was<\/p>\n
     submitted     to   the   government     on     09.11.1998.               By<\/p>\n
     communication dated 24.02.2003, respondent No.1 intimated<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
     respondent No.2 to take decision.            On 17.10.2003, the<\/p>\n
     petitioner again moved an application. Respondent No.2 again<\/p>\n
     informed respondent No.1 and by communication dated<\/p>\n
     25.07.2005, the application of the petitioner was rejected by<\/p>\n
     respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
     6.         We have heard Shri A.K. Choube, the learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Ahirkar, the learned<\/p>\n
     Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         The only point which is involved in the present<\/p>\n
     petition is whether the government was justified in refusing<\/p>\n
     permission to the petitioner to sell his land on the ground that<\/p>\n
     there was no provision to give such sanction by accepting<\/p>\n
     Nazrana.\n<\/p>\n
     8.         In this connection, the provisions of Section 29 of the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961<\/p>\n
     (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1961”) are material. Section<\/p>\n
     29 reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
      “29.       (1) Without the previous sanction of the<\/p>\n
      Collector, no land granted under Section 27 or
\n      granted to a joint farming society under Section 28,
\n      shall be –\n<\/p>\n
                 (a) transferred, whether by way of sale<\/p>\n
      (including sale in execution of a decree of a civil
\n      Court or of an award or order of any competent
\n      authority) or by way of gift, mortgage, exchange,
\n      lease or otherwise; or<\/p>\n
                (b) divided whether by partition or<\/p>\n
      otherwise, and whether by a decree or order of a
\n      civil Court or any other competent authority,<\/p>\n
      such sanction shall not be given otherwise than in
\n      such circumstances, and on such condition
\n      [including condition regarding payment of
\n      premium or nazarana to the State Government], as<\/p>\n
      may be prescribed :\n<\/p>\n
                 [Provided that, no such sanction shall be
\n      necessary where land is to be leased by a serving
\n      member of the armed forces or where the land is to
\n      be mortgaged as provided in sub-section (4) of<\/p>\n
      section 36 of the Code for raising a loan for
\n      effecting any improvement of such land.]<\/p>\n
                (2) If sanction is given by the Collector to<\/p>\n
      any transfer or division under sub-section (1)
\n      subsequent transfer or division of land shall also
\n      be subject to the provision of sub-section (1).\n<\/p>\n
                (3) Any transfer or division of land, and
\n      any acquisition thereof, in contravention of sub-
\n      section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be invalid; and
\n      as a penalty therefor, any right, title and interest of<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
            the transferor and transferee in or in relation to<\/p>\n
            such land shall, after giving him an opportunity to
\n            show cause, be forfeited by the Collector and shall
\n            without further assurance vest in the State<\/p>\n
            Government.”\n<\/p>\n
     9.        A perusal of the above provision would show that a<\/p>\n
     land granted under Section 27 of the Act of 1961 could be<\/p>\n
     transferred by way of sale with the previous sanction of the<\/p>\n
     Collector. Such sanction could be given on the conditions<\/p>\n
     including the condition regarding payment of premium or<\/p>\n
     Nazarana to the State Government as may be prescribed. In<\/p>\n
     this connection, we will have to consider the provisions of the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on<\/p>\n
     Holdings) Distribution of Surplus Land and (Amendment)<\/p>\n
     Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as “the Amendment Rules of<\/p>\n
     1975”).   Rule 12 of the Amendment Rules of 1975 is most<\/p>\n
     material. It provides as under :-\n<\/p>\n
           “12.     Provision for transfer of land in under
\n           Section 29 :- Under Section 29, the Collector may
\n           sanction transfer of land in any of the following
\n           circumstances, that is to say :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
               (a) if the land is required by an industrial<\/p>\n
     undertaking in connection with any bonafide
\n     industrial operation carried on or to be carried on
\n     by such undertaking :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (b) if the land is required for bonafide
\n     non-agricultural purpose;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (c) if the land is required for the benefit of
\n     any educational or charitable institution;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (d) if the land is required by a co-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     operative society;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (e) if the land is being exchanged –<\/p>\n
                (i) for land of equal of nearly equal value<\/p>\n
     owned and cultivated personally by member of the
\n     holders’ family, or<\/p>\n
               (ii) for land of equal or nearly equal value<\/p>\n
     in the same village owned and cultivated
\n     personally by a land owned a view to forming<\/p>\n
     compact block of his holding or better
\n     management thereof;\n<\/p>\n
                provided that, the total land held and<\/p>\n
     cultivated personally by any of such holders
\n     whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and
\n     partly as tenant does not exceeding the ceiling area
\n     as a result of the exchange;\n<\/p>\n
               (f) if the land is being leased by a lessor
\n     who is a person under disability;\n<\/p>\n
                (g) if the land is being partitioned among
\n     the heirs or survivors of the deceased grantee of the
\n     land, and no party after the shares are defined on
\n     partition gets land which is a fragment :\n<\/p>\n
                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
                     Provided that no sanction shall be
\n           accorded to any transfer of land falling under
\n           clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) unless the transferor<\/p>\n
           agrees to the condition to pay to the State
\n           Government a Nazarana equal to 40 times the
\n           assessment of land.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The proviso of Rule 12 clearly shows that the sanction would be<\/p>\n
     accorded to transfer of land on condition that the transferor<\/p>\n
     pays to State Government Nazarana equal to 40 times the<\/p>\n
     assessment of land.\n<\/p>\n
     10.       It seems that on 09.01.1994, the petitioner moved an<\/p>\n
     application for permission to sell the land allotted to him. The<\/p>\n
     said application was however sent by the petitioner to the<\/p>\n
     Chief Minister, Bombay, instead of sending it to Collector,<\/p>\n
     Buldana (respondent No.2). On 09.02.1994, the Desk Officer,<\/p>\n
     Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai<\/p>\n
     informed the petitioner that his application dated 09.01.1994<\/p>\n
     has been forwarded to Collector, Buldana for further action<\/p>\n
     and that the petitioner should contact Collector, Buldana. It<\/p>\n
     seems that thereafter no action was taken by the Collector.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
     11.          In the meantime, on 19.10.2001, the Rules were<\/p>\n
     revised and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of<\/p>\n
     Ceiling on Holdings) (Distribution of Surplus Land) and<\/p>\n
     (Amendment) Rules, 2001 came into force.                         By the<\/p>\n
     amendment, the existing proviso was substituted by following<\/p>\n
     proviso :-\n<\/p>\n
                      “Provided that, no sanction shall be
\n           accorded to any transfer of land falling under
\n           clauses (a) and (b) unless the transferor agrees to<\/p>\n
           pay to the State Government an amount equal to 75
\n           per cent of the unearned income i.e. 75 per cent of
\n           the difference between current market value and
\n           the occupancy price at which the land was<\/p>\n
           originally granted to the applicant and in case of
\n           transfer of land falling under clauses (c), (d) and (d-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           1) 50 per cent of the unearned income.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12.          It was only on 03.11.2003 that Collector, Buldana<\/p>\n
     (respondent No.2) wrote a letter to the Secretary, Revenue and<\/p>\n
     Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai informing him that<\/p>\n
     the petitioner brought to his notice that permission to sell such<\/p>\n
     land was granted to one Shri Uttamrao Santukrao More by the<\/p>\n
     government on 03.06.1995 by accepting Nazarana as per the<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
     Rules prevailing at that time and such permission should be<\/p>\n
     granted to the petitioner.       Collector, Buldana, however,<\/p>\n
     informed that he was not competent to accord such sanction.\n<\/p>\n
     He, therefore, forwarded the petitioner’s application and<\/p>\n
     documents to the Statement Government. It seems that on the<\/p>\n
     very next day i.e. on 04.11.2003, the petitioner issued notice<\/p>\n
     under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to Collector,<\/p>\n
     Buldana seeking permission to sell his land. Along with the<\/p>\n
     said notice, the petitioner also forwarded demand draft of<\/p>\n
     Rs.560\/- towards Nazarana being 40 times the land revenue of<\/p>\n
     Rs.14\/-.    It was only on 25.07.2005 that Under Secretary,<\/p>\n
     Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai<\/p>\n
     informed the petitioner that as per the prevailing Rules, there is<\/p>\n
     no provision for according sanction by accepting the amount<\/p>\n
     of Nazarana and as such the prayer of the petitioner was<\/p>\n
     rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     13.         From the above discussion, it would be seen that the<\/p>\n
     application of the petitioner was pending since 09.01.1994.\n<\/p>\n
     Collector, Buldana (respondent No.2) did not take any action<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
     till 2003. In the meanwhile, the Amendment Rules of 1975<\/p>\n
     were amended.      In fact, under Amendment Rules of 1975,<\/p>\n
     sanction to sell land could have been granted on payment of<\/p>\n
     Nazarana equal to 40 times the assessment of land. However,<\/p>\n
     nothing was done by Collector, Buldana. Collector, Buldana<\/p>\n
     moved the State Government only in the year 2003 i.e. after the<\/p>\n
     Amendment Rules of 1975 were revised by notification dated<\/p>\n
     19.10.2001 where under the transferor was required to pay an<\/p>\n
     amount equal to 75 per cent or 50 per cent of the unearned<\/p>\n
     income. This was to the detriment of the petitioner and that<\/p>\n
     too for no fault of the petitioner.     Had Collector, Buldana<\/p>\n
     (respondent No.2) acted promptly in deciding the application<\/p>\n
     of the petitioner of 1994, sanction could have been granted to<\/p>\n
     the petitioner to sell land by accepting Nazarana equal to 40<\/p>\n
     times the assessment of land which in the present case comes<\/p>\n
     to Rs.560\/-. Collector, Buldana did not take any action for<\/p>\n
     years together on the application of the petitioner. As such the<\/p>\n
     application   of   the   petitioner   would     be     governed          by<\/p>\n
     Amendment Rules of 1975 and not by the revised Rules of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
     14.       In     view   of   these     circumstances,           the      State<\/p>\n
     Government was not at all justified in rejecting the prayer of<\/p>\n
     the petitioner for grant of sanction to sell the land by accepting<\/p>\n
     Nazarana equal to 40 times. The situation is that the State<\/p>\n
     Government should not have refused the prayer of the<\/p>\n
     petitioner and in fact the Collector should have granted<\/p>\n
     sanction to the petitioner to sell the land by directing the<\/p>\n
     petitioner to pay to the State Government Nazarana equal to<\/p>\n
     40 times the assessment of land. Hence the petition needs to<\/p>\n
     be allowed. We, therefore, pass the following order.\n<\/p>\n
     15.       The petition is allowed.             Respondent No.2 –\n<\/p>\n
     Collector, Buldana is hereby directed to accord sanction to the<\/p>\n
     petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of<\/p>\n
     communication of this order to sell his land in question on the<\/p>\n
     petitioner     paying   Nazarana      of   Rs.560\/-       to     the     State<\/p>\n
     Government. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.\n<\/p>\n
               JUDGE                                             JUDGE\n     rrg.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>\n                                     14<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     16.       At this stage, Shri S.B. Ahirkar, the learned Assistant<\/p>\n
     Government Pleader prays for staying this order for a period of<\/p>\n
     four weeks to enable the State to approach the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Prayer is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
               JUDGE                                         JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n     rrg.\n                     \n                    \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:01:49 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008 Bench: Prasanna B. Varale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2921 OF 2006. Trimbakrao s\/o Mugutrao Deshmukh, aged 74 years, Occupation Retired Captain, resident of Plot No.1, Gayatro Nagar, Near Ajantha Colony, Jalgaon, […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83342","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCaptain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008 - 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\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-07T15:41:40+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-07T15:41:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2185,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-07T15:41:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008 - 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\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-07T15:41:40+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-07T15:41:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008"},"wordCount":2185,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008","name":"Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-07T15:41:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/captain-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Captain vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 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:\/\/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\/83342","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=83342"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83342\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83342"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83342"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83342"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}