{"id":91576,"date":"2010-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2"},"modified":"2017-11-07T06:37:10","modified_gmt":"2017-11-07T01:07:10","slug":"mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Mahant vs State on 13 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mahant vs State on 13 October, 2010<\/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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10811 of 1995\n \n\nWITH\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION NO.6603 OF 2010\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nMAHANT\nNATVARDAS JAGJIVANDASJI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 27 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nGAURANG H BHATT for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 3, 5, 7,11\n- 12,14 - 15,23 - 26. \nNone for Respondent(s) : 2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2,\n2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 2.2.9, 2.2.10, 2.2.11,\n4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.2.7, 4.2.8, 4.2.9,\n4.2.10, 4.2.11, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.2.4, 8.2.5, 8.2.6, 8.2.7,\n8.2.8, 8.2.9, 8.2.10, 8.2.11, 13, 13.2.1, 13.2.2, 13.2.3, 13.2.4,\n13.2.5, 13.2.6, 13.2.7, 13.2.8, 13.2.9, 13.2.10, 13.2.11, 16, 16.2.1,\n16.2.2, 16.2.3, 16.2.4, 16.2.5, 16.2.6, 16.2.7, 16.2.8, 16.2.9,\n16.2.10,16.2.11 - 17, 17.2.1, 17.2.2, 17.2.3, 17.2.4, 17.2.5, 17.2.6,\n17.2.7, 17.2.8, 17.2.9, 17.2.10,17.2.11 - 18, 18.2.1, 18.2.2, 18.2.3,\n18.2.4, 18.2.5, 18.2.6, 18.2.7, 18.2.8, 18.2.9, 18.2.10,18.2.11 - 19,\n19.2.1, 19.2.2, 19.2.3, 19.2.4, 19.2.5, 19.2.6, 19.2.7, 19.2.8,\n19.2.9, 19.2.10, 19.2.11, 21, 21.2.1, 21.2.2, 21.2.3, 21.2.4, 21.2.5,\n21.2.6, 21.2.7, 21.2.8, 21.2.9, 21.2.10,21.2.11 - 22, 22.2.1, 22.2.2,\n22.2.3, 22.2.4, 22.2.5, 22.2.6, 22.2.7, 22.2.8, 22.2.9,\n22.2.10,22.2.11  \nMR DHIRENDRA MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 3 - 12,\n15, \n- for Respondent(s) : 0.0.0  \n- for Respondent(s) :\n0.0.0,0.0.0  \n- for Respondent(s) : 0.0.0,0.0.0  \n- for\nRespondent(s) : 0.0.0,0.0.0\n \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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 13\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed<br \/>\nby the Secretary, (Land Reforms), Revenue Department, State of<br \/>\nGujarat passed in Application No.SBN-2778-M-8320-Z dated 24\/01\/1983<br \/>\nwhereby the Secretary while disposing of the said application<br \/>\ndirected that the rights of the petitioner for land bearing Survey<br \/>\nNo.205 admeasuring 30 Acres and 21 Gunthas was granted under the<br \/>\nSaurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951 for personal cultivation or<br \/>\nfor growing fruit trees on condition that the same will be recalled<br \/>\nor revived at any time for the public purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\nbrief facts of the case are that land bearing Survey No.205<br \/>\nadmeasuring A.30-25G prior to coming into force of the Barkhali<br \/>\nAbolition Act, was held under the Barkhali Tenure by the Dharmada<br \/>\nInstitution known by the name of Laxminarayan Temple of Mahuva which<br \/>\nhad to utilize the income derived therefrom for the benefit of poor<br \/>\npeople in accordance with the terms of the original grant made to the<br \/>\ninstitution by the old rulers of Mahuva.  However, the institution<br \/>\nused to give this land to Khoja Valimanad Mehrali of Mahuva with<br \/>\neffect from 08\/03\/2010 on verakhat which was being renewed every ten<br \/>\nyears by the consent of both the parties.  Last renewal took place in<br \/>\nthe year 1944 for a period of ten years and in this agreement the<br \/>\ntrustees nominated by the Ex-Bhavnagar States had entered into an<br \/>\nagreement for and on behalf of the institution with Khoja Valimamad.<br \/>\nThis last verakhat was agreed upon for ten years and was therefore to<br \/>\nexpire in the year 1954.  However, in the year 1951 the Barkhali<br \/>\nAbolition Act came into force and both the parties demanded occupancy<br \/>\nrights under the Act. Khoja Valimamad applied to Special Mamlatdar&#8217;s<br \/>\nCourt for grant of occupancy right, who decided that Khoja Valimamad<br \/>\nwas not entitled to be given the occupancy rights and that he was<br \/>\nholding the disputed land as a mere licensee and not as a full<br \/>\nfledged tenant. The Khoja Valimamad preferred an appeal to the Deputy<br \/>\nCollector, Mahuva who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of<br \/>\nthe Special Mamlatdar and decided that Khoja Valimamad was a tenant<br \/>\nand was to be granted occupancy rights as such under the Barkhali<br \/>\nAbolition Act.  Against the said decision of the Deputy Collector,<br \/>\nMahuva, the Laxminarayan Temple Institution made a revision<br \/>\napplication to the Saurashtra Revenue Tribunal who decided that the<br \/>\ndisputed land was Barkhali Tenure and that Khoja Valimamad was a<br \/>\ntenant and thereafter reversed the order of the Deputy Collector,<br \/>\nMahuva insofar as it relates to grant of occupancy certificate to<br \/>\nKhoja Valimamad and ultimately case was remanded to the Mamlatdar who<br \/>\nmade an inquiry and decided that  Laxminarayan Temple Institution<br \/>\ncannot be re-granted land.  Thereafter the Government by letter<br \/>\ninformed that there was no special reason to reconsider the earlier<br \/>\norder dated 27\/12\/1961. Thereafter, the petitioner filed SCA No.577<br \/>\nof 162 which was withdrawn in view of the alternative remedy.  The<br \/>\npetitioner had also filed RCS No.90 of 1963 before the Court of<br \/>\nlearned Civil Judge (SD), Bhavnagar against the impugned order dated<br \/>\n27\/12\/1961, which came to be allowed and impugned order dated<br \/>\n27\/12\/1961 was quashed and set aside. Thereafter, the Khoja Valimamad<br \/>\nhad preferred First Appeal No.613 of 1968 before the High Court and<br \/>\nin view of jurisdiction the same was disposed of. Thereafter, the<br \/>\nKhoja Valimamad preferred Civil Appeal No.130 of 1970 before the<br \/>\nDistrict Court, Bhavnagar which was dismissed and order of the trial<br \/>\nCourt was confirmed.  Thereafter, the legal heirs and representatives<br \/>\nhad preferred Second Appeal No.481 of 1974 before this Court which<br \/>\nwas also dismissed directing the State Government to decide the<br \/>\ndispute in accordance with Section 12 of the Saurashtra Barkhali<br \/>\nAbolition Act, 1951 in respect of the grant of the disputed land.<br \/>\nThereafter, in pursuant thereto the Secretary, (Land  Reforms),<br \/>\nRevenue Department, State of Gujarat having heard the parties passed<br \/>\nthe order dated 22\/03\/1982 which is challenged by way of the present<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that case of the<br \/>\npetitioner is identically situated with the other trust for which the<br \/>\nlearned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon ground (q) of the<br \/>\npetition. He further submitted that the observations made by the High<br \/>\nCourt while deciding Second Appeal No.481 of 1974 is relevant and has<br \/>\nrelied upon the operative portion of the order which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> The result of this<br \/>\nlitigation as intends to-day would be that the Government will hear<br \/>\nboth the sides and decide the question of grant of land under Section<br \/>\n12 of the Act, after extending an opportunity their say, both the<br \/>\nheirs of deceased Ali Mohmad as well as to the Manager of the Trust.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.1\t\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate for the petitioner has submitted that in that view of the<br \/>\nmatter the certificate issued in favour of the respondent by the<br \/>\nauthority is not in consonance with law and the order passed by the<br \/>\nMamlatdar and Deputy Collector which has merged in the order of the<br \/>\nSaurashtra Revenue Tribunal which has directed to recommend the case<br \/>\nafter examining the matter, has wrongly been relied upon by the<br \/>\nSecretary, (Land Reforms), Revenue Department. The order of the<br \/>\nDeputy Collector and Saurashtra Revenue Tribunal is non est<br \/>\nand ought not to have been relied upon. He further submitted that the<br \/>\nSaurashtra Revenue Tribunal directed the Mamlatdar to prepare a<br \/>\nproposal and to forward it.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tHaving<br \/>\nheard the learned Advocate for the petitioner this Court is of the<br \/>\nopinion that the Secretary has considered the evidence on record in<br \/>\ndetail and thereafter the rights of the tenant who were cultivating<br \/>\nthe land were granted benefits and certificate issued by the lower<br \/>\nauthority was upheld.  The view taken by the Secretary, (Land<br \/>\nReforms), Revenue Department is just and proper. The contention of<br \/>\nthe learned Advocate comparing the case of the petitioner with other<br \/>\ntrust cannot be accepted since the tenancy proceedings against that<br \/>\ntrust was terminated in favour of trust whereas in the present case<br \/>\ntenancy proceedings was decided against the Trust.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tIt<br \/>\nis required to be noted that after the order of the Secretary<br \/>\n(Appeals) of 1983, necessary entries were effected in the revenue<br \/>\nrecords and the land has become non-agricultural land and after the<br \/>\nnecessary plotting, number of plots are also sold.  Further, the<br \/>\npetitioner has not challenged the orders of revenue entries permitted<br \/>\nunder Section 65 of the Code. The finding of the Collector is that<br \/>\nlooking to the area and location of the land in question, it is not<br \/>\nin public interest to give the land on tenancy basis.  Learned<br \/>\nAdvocate for the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the<br \/>\nfindings of the lower authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tHence,<br \/>\nthe petition is devoid of merits, no interference is required to be<br \/>\nmade with the impugned order.  Accordingly, the petition stands<br \/>\ndismissed.  Interim-relief, if any, stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tAt<br \/>\nthis stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner has requested to<br \/>\ncontinue the interim relief.  However, looking to the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case it will not be appropriate to continue the<br \/>\nsame and therefore the interim relief is not extended.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of the disposal of main matter, Civil Application No.6603 of<br \/>\n2010 seeking vacation of interim -relief is not required to be<br \/>\nentertained and stands disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>(K<br \/>\nS JHAVERI, J.)<\/p>\n<p>sompura<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Mahant vs State on 13 October, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10811 of 1995 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6603 OF 2010 ========================================================= MAHANT NATVARDAS JAGJIVANDASJI &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 27 &#8211; Respondent(s) [&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-91576","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>Mahant vs State on 13 October, 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\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahant vs State on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-07T01:07:10+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahant vs State on 13 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T01:07:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1217,\"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\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Mahant vs State on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T01:07:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahant vs State on 13 October, 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:\/\/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":"Mahant vs State on 13 October, 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\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahant vs State on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-07T01:07:10+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahant vs State on 13 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T01:07:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2"},"wordCount":1217,"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\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2","name":"Mahant vs State on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T01:07:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-state-on-13-october-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahant vs State on 13 October, 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:\/\/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\/91576","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=91576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}