{"id":9422,"date":"2011-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-19T11:10:27","modified_gmt":"2017-11-19T05:40:27","slug":"divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
     2107wp979.11.odt                                                                               1\/10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n      WRIT PETITION NOS.     979\/2011, 980\/2011, 981\/2011, 982\/2011,\n                                                                     \n                                      983\/2011, 984\/2011, 985\/2011 & 986\/2011\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.979\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONERS :-                 1. Divisional Forest Officer, <\/p>\n
                                       Gondia Division, Gondia,
\n                          ig           Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                    2. Range Forest Officer,
\n                                       Gondia Range, Gondia,<\/p>\n
                                       Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                              …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENT :-                       Shri Ganiram S\/o Jyotiram Kewat, <\/p>\n
                                         R\/o & Post-Mundipar,
\n                                         Tahsil & District: Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   WITH<\/p>\n
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.980\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONERS :-                 1. Divisional Forest Officer,
\n                                       Gondia Division, Gondia,
\n                                       Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                    2. Range Forest Officer,
\n                                       Gondia Range, Gondia,
\n                                       Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                              …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:19 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2107wp979.11.odt                                                          2\/10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n     RESPONDENT :-          Shri Munna Alias Vijay S\/o Bhaiyalal \n                            Shiwankar,\n                            R\/o Civil Lines, Gondia,\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                            Tahsil & District: Gondia.\n\n                                    WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.981\/2011\n\n<\/pre>\n
     PETITIONERS :-      1. Divisional Forest Officer,
\n                            Gondia Division, Gondia,<\/p>\n
                            Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                    ig   2. Range Forest Officer,
\n                            Gondia Range, Gondia,
\n                            Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENT :-          Shri Radheshyam S\/o Dulichand Rahangdale,
\n                            R\/o Suryatola,<\/p>\n
                            Tahsil & District: Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                    WITH<\/p>\n
                        WRIT PETITION NO.982\/2011
\n     PETITIONERS :-      1. Divisional Forest Officer, <\/p>\n
                            Gondia Division, Gondia,
\n                            Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                         2. Range Forest Officer,
\n                            Gondia Range, Gondia,<\/p>\n
                            Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENT :-          Shri Karu S\/o Shyamlal Choudhary,
\n                            R\/o Bhanpur, Post-Dongargaon,
\n                            Tahsil & District: Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:19 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2107wp979.11.odt                                                          3\/10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                                    WITH\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.983\/2011\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n<\/pre>\n
     PETITIONERS :-      1. Divisional Forest Officer,
\n                            Gondia Division, Gondia,
\n                            Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                         2. Range Forest Officer,
\n                            Gondia Range, Gondia,
\n                            Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENT :-\n<\/p>\n
                    ig      Shri Babulal S\/o Keshorao Dhabale,
\n                            R\/o Kudwa, Tahsil Gondia,
\n                            Tahsil & District: Gondia.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                    WITH<\/p>\n
                        WRIT PETITION NO.984\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONERS :-      1. State of Maharashtra through,
\n                            Deputy Conservator of Forests, <\/p>\n
                            Gondia Division, Gondia,<\/p>\n
                         2. The Range Forest Officer,
\n                            Gondia Range, Gondia,
\n                            Tq. and Dist. Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENT :-          Shri Santosh S\/o Puranlal Sahare,
\n                            Aged about 36 years,
\n                            R\/o Laxmi Nagar, Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:19 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2107wp979.11.odt                                                          4\/10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                                    WITH\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.985\/2011\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n<\/pre>\n
     PETITIONERS :-      1. Divisional Forest Officer,
\n                            Gondia Division, Gondia,
\n                            Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                         2. Range Forest Officer,
\n                            Gondia Range, Gondia,
\n                            Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENT :-\n<\/p>\n
                    ig      Shri Zanaklal S\/o Buddhu Banote,
\n                            R\/o Bhanpur, Post-Dongargaon,
\n                            Tahsil & District: Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                    WITH<\/p>\n
                        WRIT PETITION NO.986\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONERS :-      1. Divisional Forest Officer,
\n                            Gondia Division, Gondia,
\n                            Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                         2. Range Forest Officer,
\n                            Gondia Range, Gondia,
\n                            Tahsil & District : Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENT :-          Shri Gorelal S\/o Fulichand Choudhary,
\n                            R\/o Ramnagar, Gondia,
\n                            Tahsil & District: Gondia.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:19 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2107wp979.11.odt                                                                                5\/10<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
           Shri A. D. Sonak & Ms T. Khan, learned A.G.Ps.for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                Shri N. N. Mothghare, learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                                   CORAM : R. M. SAVANT J.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                                   DATED  : 21.07.2011 \n\n\n\n\n                                               \n     O R A L    J U D G M E N T\n\n\n\n     1)\n                         \n<\/pre>\n
               Rule   with   the   consent   of   the   parties   made   returnable   forthwith   and <\/p>\n
     heard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2)        The   above   Writ   Petitions   take   exception   to   the   judgments   and <\/p>\n
     orders passed by the Industrial Court, Bhandara, by which the complaints <\/p>\n
     filed by the respondent in each of the above petitions came to be allowed <\/p>\n
     and the declaration came to be issued that the petitioners herein have <\/p>\n
     engaged   in   unfair   labour   practice   covered   under   Items   5,   6   and   9   of <\/p>\n
     Schedule   IV   of   the   Maharashtra   Recognition   of   Trade   Unions   and <\/p>\n
     Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, <\/p>\n
     1979).     The   Industrial   Court   has   issued   a   direction   to   regularize   the <\/p>\n
     services of the complainants by forwarding a proposal to that effect as per <\/p>\n
     Government   Resolution   dated   30\/01\/1996.     A   further   direction   was <\/p>\n
     issued to extend the benefit of permanency to the complainants.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:19 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2107wp979.11.odt                                                                      6\/10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n     3)      Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual matrix of the case can be \n\n     stated thus. \n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n<\/pre>\n
             The   respondent   in   each   of   the   above   petitions   claimed   to   be <\/p>\n
     working with the Forest Department i.e. the petitioner above named from <\/p>\n
     the year 1990 on daily wage basis.  It appears that the State Government <\/p>\n
     to ameliorate the conditions of the persons, who were working on daily <\/p>\n
     wages   took   a   policy   decision   to   regularize   their   services.   Pursuant   to <\/p>\n
     which   the   State   Government   issued   a   Government   Resolution   Dated <\/p>\n
     30\/01\/1996  inter   alia  governing   the   regularization   of   services   of   such <\/p>\n
     daily wagers.  In terms of the said resolution, the cut off date fixed was 1 st <\/p>\n
     November, 1994 and the daily wagers, who had worked for a period of <\/p>\n
     240 days in the minimum every year in the preceding five years, were to <\/p>\n
     be   given   the   benefit   of   regularization.     The   respondent   in   the   above <\/p>\n
     petitions filed  Complaint  ULP 75\/2007  (subject  matter  of Writ  Petition <\/p>\n
     No.781\/2011) invoking Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & <\/p>\n
     P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The substantive relief sought in the said Complaint was <\/p>\n
     that the respondent was seeking regularization of his services and to grant <\/p>\n
     him benefit of permanency with the back wages and continuity of service <\/p>\n
     in terms of the said Government Resolution dated 30\/01\/1996. Similar <\/p>\n
     complaints were filed by the respondents in the other petitions.  <\/p>\n
\n\n\n     4)      The parties went to trial.  During the course of the trial, since the \n\n\n\n\n                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:32:19 :::<\/span>\n      2107wp979.11.odt                                                                    7\/10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n<\/pre>\n
     issue   was   as   regards   whether   the   respondent-workman   had   completed <\/p>\n
     240 days of service in each of the preceding five years, the respondent <\/p>\n
     was directed to take inspection of the muster rolls and prepare a chart in <\/p>\n
     respect of the number of days that he had worked in the preceding five <\/p>\n
     years.  Accordingly, inspection was afforded to the respondent on the basis <\/p>\n
     which a Chart was prepared in respect of each of the respondents in the <\/p>\n
     above   writ   petitions,   which   was   proved   in   evidence   and   came   to   be <\/p>\n
     marked as Exhibit-32.\n<\/p>\n
     5)     The said chart was signed on behalf of the petitioners herein by <\/p>\n
     one   Ashwinikumar   Thakkar,   who   was   then   working   as   Range   Forest <\/p>\n
     Officer.   In so far as the petitioners are concerned, they also sought to <\/p>\n
     produce muster rolls in respect of each of the respondent-complainant in <\/p>\n
     support of  their  case  that  each  of  the  respondent-complainant had  not <\/p>\n
     worked for a period of 240 days in each of the preceding five years prior <\/p>\n
     to the cut off date.  However, since the said muster rolls were not proved <\/p>\n
     by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, <\/p>\n
     the same was not accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     6)     The Industrial Court relying upon Exhibit-32 filed on behalf of the <\/p>\n
     respondent recorded a finding that each of the respondents in the above <\/p>\n
     petitions had worked for a period of 240 days in each of the preceding <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:19 :::<\/span>
\n      2107wp979.11.odt                                                                         8\/10<\/p>\n
     five years prior to the cut off date.  In so far as the muster rolls produced <\/p>\n
     by the petitioners are concerned, the Industrial Court did not deem it fit <\/p>\n
     to take it into consideration on the ground that they did not cover the <\/p>\n
     entire   period.     The   said   finding   of   the   Industrial   Court   finds   place   in <\/p>\n
     paragraph No.11 of the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
     7)      Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, the <\/p>\n
     impugned judgment and orders passed in each of the above petitions are <\/p>\n
     required to be quashed and set aside and the matters are required to be <\/p>\n
     remanded back to the Industrial Court for a de novo consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     8)      The issue in the complaint was as regards the entitlement of the <\/p>\n
     respondent-workman to the benefits of the State Government Resolution <\/p>\n
     dated 30\/01\/1996 indubitably the said benefits can only be available to a <\/p>\n
     daily wager, who has worked for a period of 240 days every year in the <\/p>\n
     preceding five years prior to the cut off date i.e. 1st November, 1994.  No <\/p>\n
     doubt, the statement at Exhibit-32 produced by the respondent has been <\/p>\n
     proved   by   the   process   known   to   law   and   was   therefore   exhibited   as <\/p>\n
     Exhibit-32.   However, the Industrial Court could not have brushed aside <\/p>\n
     the material produced on behalf of the petitioners by stating that the said <\/p>\n
     material does not relate to the entire period.  The Industrial Court thereby <\/p>\n
     failed   to   appreciate   the   case   of   the   petitioners   that   the   respondents-\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:19 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2107wp979.11.odt                                                                        9\/10<\/p>\n
     workmen were not working for a period of five years preceding the cut off <\/p>\n
     date.     Hence,   it   was   incumbent   on   the   Industrial   Court   to   permit   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners to lead evidence in that behalf, as the same went to the very <\/p>\n
     root  of  the   matter   in  so   far   as the   case   of  the   respective   parties   were <\/p>\n
     concerned.   In   not   doing   so   and   merely   relying   upon   Exhibit-32,   the <\/p>\n
     Industrial Court has shut itself from material which could be said to be <\/p>\n
     relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the issue that was involved in <\/p>\n
     the said complaint. In that view of the matter, the judgment and orders <\/p>\n
     subject matter of the each of the above petitions as indicated above are <\/p>\n
     required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly are quashed and set <\/p>\n
     aside and the following directions are issued.\n<\/p>\n
     i)      The petitioners would be entitled to produce the muster rolls and <\/p>\n
             such other material in their possession in support of their case that <\/p>\n
             the respondents-complainants in each of the above petitions have <\/p>\n
             not worked for a period of 240 days in a year for the preceding five <\/p>\n
             years.\n<\/p>\n
     ii)     The petitioners would be entitled to prove the said documents by <\/p>\n
             the procedure prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
     iii)    The respondents-complainants would be entitled to cross-examine <\/p>\n
             the witness of the petitioners through whom the said documents <\/p>\n
             would be got proved by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:20 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2107wp979.11.odt                                                                     10\/10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n     iv)      The   Industrial   Court   would   thereupon   consider   the   material   on \n\n<\/pre>\n
              record   as   also   the   pleadings   and   thereafter   adjudicate   upon   the <\/p>\n
              complaint.  The respondent would also at liberty to produce further <\/p>\n
              material, if they so be in fit.\n<\/p>\n
     v)       The parties to appear before the Industrial Court on 17th  August, <\/p>\n
              2011.   The  Industrial  Court  thereafter  to  dispose  of  each  of  the <\/p>\n
              complaints within a period of four months.\n<\/p>\n
     vi)      The person, who has signed the said document at Exhibit-32, i.e. <\/p>\n
              Ashwinikumar Thakkar has filed an affidavit in the instant petition <\/p>\n
              stating   the   circumstances   in   which   he   has   signed   the   said <\/p>\n
              document, in my view, therefore, the same would also be a relevant <\/p>\n
              document to be considered by the Industrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
     9)       Rule   is   accordingly   made   absolute   in   the   aforesaid   terms   with <\/p>\n
     parties to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    JUDGE <\/p>\n
     KHUNTE<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:20 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant 2107wp979.11.odt 1\/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NOS. 979\/2011, 980\/2011, 981\/2011, 982\/2011, 983\/2011, 984\/2011, 985\/2011 & 986\/2011 —————————————————————————————————– WRIT PETITION NO.979\/2011 PETITIONERS :- 1. Divisional Forest Officer, Gondia Division, Gondia, […]<\/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-9422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDivisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011 - 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\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-19T05:40:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-19T05:40:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1576,\"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\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-19T05:40:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011 - 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\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-19T05:40:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-19T05:40:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011"},"wordCount":1576,"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\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011","name":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-19T05:40:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-shri-ganiram-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Shri Ganiram on 21 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9422","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=9422"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9422\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}