{"id":96757,"date":"2011-03-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-10T18:40:13","modified_gmt":"2017-01-10T13:10:13","slug":"devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R.M.Doshit,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/981\/1997\t 10\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 981 of 1997\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT \n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nDEVDATKUMAR\nGOVINDBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRS SANJANWALA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3  \nMS KIRAN PANDEY AGP for\nRespondent(s) : 1 -\n4. \n=========================================================\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\n HONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT      5th October, 2007\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nORAL\n JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis<br \/>\nis a petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution<br \/>\nby the holder of the land against the judgment and order dated 31st<br \/>\nDecember, 1996 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal [hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as ?Sthe Tribunal??] in Revision<br \/>\nApplication No. TEN.BS.299 of 1988. The matter arises from the<br \/>\nproceedings under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960<br \/>\n[hereinafter referred to as, ?Sthe Act of 1960??].\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioners are the heirs and successors-in-title of one Govanbhai @<br \/>\nGovindbhai Nathubhai Patel. The said Govindbhai Nathubhai owned<br \/>\ncertain pieces of land at village Simalthu, Taluka-Olpad, District<br \/>\nSurat. Pursuant to the amendment of the Act of 1960 by the Gujarat<br \/>\nAct no.2 of 1974, a notice in form No.VI came to be issued on 26th<br \/>\nAugust, 1976. In answer to the said notice the said Govindbhai<br \/>\nNathubhai declared his holding of 44 Acres &amp; 23 Gunthas of lands<br \/>\nin aggregate. On 10th January, 1978, the Executive<br \/>\nEngineer, Surat issued a Canal Certificate certifying that 2 Acres<br \/>\nand 39 Gunthas of the holding of the said Govindbhai Nathubhai was<br \/>\nperennially irrigated land and 41 Acres ?  24 Gunthas was seasonally<br \/>\nirrigated land. Another canal certificate was issued on 17th<br \/>\nFebruary, 1984 indicating that all the said lands were perennially<br \/>\nirrigated. Pending the said proceeding, the said Govindbhai Nathubhai<br \/>\npassed away on 9th June, 1977. The mutation entry no. 759<br \/>\ncame to be made on 31st August, 1978 in accordance with<br \/>\nthe will executed by the said Govindbhai Nathubhai. Under the said<br \/>\nWill, certain lands were bequeathed to one of his sons Anilkumar<br \/>\nGovindbhai. The elder son Devduttkumar Govindbhai was given certain<br \/>\nlands during the life time of the said Govindbhai Nathubhai.  Since<br \/>\nthe death of the said Govindbhai Nathubhai, the matter before the<br \/>\nMamlatdar &amp; ALT was prosecuted by his widow-Lalitaben Govindbhai.<br \/>\nShe disputed the canal certificate dated 17th February,<br \/>\n1984. Pursuant to the said dispute, the concerned officer was<br \/>\nsummoned for cross examination. However, the said Lalitaben refused<br \/>\nto cross examine the Canal Officer. Instead, she admitted the canal<br \/>\ncertificate dated 10th January, 1978. According to her,<br \/>\nshe had two sons ?  Devdutt Govindbhai and Anil Govindbhai. Devdutt<br \/>\nwas born on 9th September, 1956 and Anil Govindbhai was<br \/>\nborn on 22nd February, 1959. Both the said sons were major<br \/>\nas on 1st April, 1976. Thus, the said Govindbhai Nathubhai<br \/>\nwas entitled to retain lands equivalent to  three ceiling areas. In<br \/>\nsupport of her case, she produced the school leaving certificates of<br \/>\nboth the aforesaid sons ?  Devdutt &amp; Anil. The said contention<br \/>\nwas accepted by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tOn<br \/>\nthe basis of the canal certificate dated 10th January,<br \/>\n1978, the total holding of the said Govindbhai Nathubhai was computed<br \/>\nto be equivalent of 92 acres 5 gunthas of dry crop land. The total<br \/>\nholding of the said Govindbhai Nathubhai being less than the three<br \/>\nceiling areas, he did not hold surplus land within the meaning<br \/>\nof the Act of 1960. In view of the said finding, by Order dated 29th<br \/>\nFebruary, 1988 made by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT in Ceiling Case no.<br \/>\n172 of 1977, the notice issued under Section 20 [1] of the Act was<br \/>\nwithdrawn.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nsaid order was taken in review by the Deputy Collector, Surat in<br \/>\nexercise of the power of suo motu revision.  After giving<br \/>\nnotice to the said Lalitaben and after giving her opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing, the Deputy Collector by his Order dated 9th<br \/>\nAugust, 1988 reversed the order of the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT. The<br \/>\nDeputy Collector observed that the school leaving certificates of the<br \/>\naforesaid Devdutt &amp; Anilkumar produced by Lalitaben were not<br \/>\ngenuine. Upon further inquiry and perusal of the birth certificates,<br \/>\nboth the said Devdutt &amp; Anilkumar were found to be minors on 1st<br \/>\nApril, 1976 i.e., the specified date. The deputy Collector did not<br \/>\nalter or modify the order of the Mamladar in so far as total holding<br \/>\nof the said Govindbhai Nathubhai was concerned i.e.,  the Deputy<br \/>\nCollector proceeded on the premise that the total holding of the said<br \/>\nGovindbhai Nathubhai was equivalent to 92 Acrea-5 Gunthas of dry crop<br \/>\nland. The Deputy Collector, however, reversed the order of the<br \/>\nMamlatdar &amp; ALT in so far as the entitlement of the said<br \/>\nGovindbhai Nathubhai was concerned. Considering that both the sons of<br \/>\nthe said Govindbhai Nathubhai were minor and that the total number of<br \/>\nfamily members of the said Govindbhai Nathubhai was five, the said<br \/>\nGovindbhai Nathubhai was entitled to hold land equivalent to the<br \/>\nceiling area i.e., 36 Acres. He was not entitled to additional land<br \/>\neither under Section 6 [3B] or under Section 6 [3C] of the Act of<br \/>\n1960. The Deputy Collector accordingly held that the lands<br \/>\nadmeasuring 26 Acres-31 Gunthas equivalent to 55 Acres ?  25 Gunthas<br \/>\nof dry crop land were surplus and that Govindbhai Nathubhai was<br \/>\nentitled to retain 17 Acres ?  32 Gunthas of land equivalent to 36<br \/>\nAcres 20 Gunthas of dry crop land.\n<\/p>\n<p>Feeling<br \/>\naggrieved, the above referred Lalitaben preferred Revision<br \/>\nApplication No. 299 of 1988 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its<br \/>\nimpugned judgment and order dated 31st December,<br \/>\n1996 rejected the revision application. Before the Tribunal, it was<br \/>\nargued that the holder Govindbhai Nathubhai had, on 10th<br \/>\nJanuary, 1970 and 14th January, 1970 i.e., prior to 24th<br \/>\nJanuary, 1971, agreed to sell two pieces of land admeasuring 7 Acres<br \/>\n?  26 Gunthas in aggregate to one Jayant Patel and one Suresh Patel.<br \/>\nThe said land, therefore, did not form part of the holding of the<br \/>\nlate Govindbhai Nathubhai as on 1st April, 1976. The said<br \/>\ncontention was negated. The Tribunal held that after the date of the<br \/>\nalleged agreement for sale, the possession of the land was not<br \/>\ntransferred to the proposed vendees but the late Govindbhai Nathubhai<br \/>\ncontinued to cultivate the whole of the lands, including the<br \/>\naforesaid lands which were the subject matter of agreement for sale.<br \/>\nIt was also argued that all the transferees of the land were entitled<br \/>\nto notice i.e., the minor sons were also entitled to notice. As no<br \/>\nnotice to minor sons were issued, the matter be remanded for hearing<br \/>\nafresh. That contention was also rejected. The Tribunal observed that<br \/>\nit was the aforesaid Lalitaben who had prosecuted the matter all<br \/>\nalong for herself and her children; as she had appeared for herself<br \/>\nand for her  children, a separate notice to each of the  children was<br \/>\nnot necessitated. As to the entitlement of the late Govindbhai<br \/>\nNathubhai, the Tribunal held that he was entitled to hold land<br \/>\nequivalent to one ceiling area. According to Section 6 [3B] of the<br \/>\nAct, the holding of the minor children was required to be clubbed<br \/>\nwith the holding of the parents. The Tribunal also observed that the<br \/>\nsaid Lalitaben had produced fabricated documents with a view to<br \/>\nretaining larger area of lands.\n<\/p>\n<p>Feeling<br \/>\naggrieved, the petitioners-the legal representatives of the aforesaid<br \/>\nLalitaben have preferred the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before<br \/>\nme, Mr. Sanjanwala has pressed only one contention. He has submitted<br \/>\nthat the authorities below relied upon the canal certificates ?  one<br \/>\nissued on 10th January, 1978 and the another issued on<br \/>\n17th February, 1984. The predecessor of the petitioners<br \/>\nwere not heard by the concerned Canal Officer at the time the<br \/>\ncertificates were issued. The impugned judgment of the<br \/>\nTribunal and the orders made by the authority below, therefore,<br \/>\nrequire to be set-aside and the matter be remanded for decision<br \/>\nafresh. A fresh canal certificate be called for after giving<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He has submitted that this<br \/>\ncontention was raised before the Tribunal below. The Tribunal,<br \/>\nhowever, did not consider the same. He has read out relevant<br \/>\nparagraph from the memorandum of application. In support of his<br \/>\nsubmission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the<br \/>\nmatter of <a href=\"\/doc\/436542\/\">Amratlal Bhikhabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat &amp;<br \/>\nAnr.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<p>[1994 (1) GLR 637].\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMiss<br \/>\nPandey has contested the petition. She has supported the impugned<br \/>\njudgment and order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tUndoubtedly,<br \/>\nthe judgment in the matter of Amratlal Bhikhabhai Patel [Supra]<br \/>\nrelied upon by Mr. Sanjanwala holds that the canal certificate is the<br \/>\ndocument which is relevant for the purpose of computing the holding<br \/>\nof a person. Issuance of  canal certificate is a quasi judicial<br \/>\nfunction, the holder of the land is, therefore, entitled to hearing<br \/>\nbefore the certificate is issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>However,<br \/>\nthe above referred judgment shall not affect the merits of the<br \/>\npresent case. It is apparent that though the contention was raised in<br \/>\nthe memo of revision application, before the Tribunal the same was<br \/>\nnot pressed. What was argued was that the order of the authority<br \/>\nbelow was illegal as the minor children were not issued notice. Even<br \/>\nif it is permitted to be raised before this Court, the same shall not<br \/>\naffect the present petition one way or the other. As recorded<br \/>\nhereinabove, the aforesaid Lalitaben had admitted the canal<br \/>\ncertificate dated 10th January, 1978. It was the said<br \/>\ncanal certificate dated 10th January, 1978 which was<br \/>\nrelied upon by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT to compute the total holding<br \/>\nof late Govindbhai Nathubhai in terms of dry crop land. The canal<br \/>\ncertificate issued on 17th February, 1984 was not relied<br \/>\nupon by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT to compute the total holding of the<br \/>\nlate Govindbhai Nathubhai in terms of dry crop land. The Deputy<br \/>\nCollector also proceeded on the basis of the computation made by the<br \/>\nMamlatdar &amp; ALT.  In other words, the canal certificate dated<br \/>\n17th February, 1984 was not relied upon by either of the<br \/>\nauthorities below, nor by the Tribunal. The legality of the said<br \/>\ncanal certificate for want of opportunity of hearing to the holder of<br \/>\nthe lands is of no consequence. The finding that the total holding of<br \/>\nlate Govindbhai Nathubhai in terms of dry crop land was 92 Acres 5<br \/>\nGunthas had become final and cannot now be questioned.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t I<br \/>\nreiterate that Mr. Sanjanwala has not raised any other contention.<br \/>\nFor the aforesaid reasons, no interference is warranted. The petition<br \/>\nis dismissed with cost. Rule is discharged. Interim<br \/>\nrelief stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>{Ms.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.M Doshit, J.}<\/p>\n<p>Prakash*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011 Author: R.M.Doshit,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/981\/1997 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 981 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be [&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-96757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011 - 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\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-10T13:10:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T13:10:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1635,\"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\\\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T13:10:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 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":"Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011 - 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\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-10T13:10:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T13:10:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011"},"wordCount":1635,"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\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011","name":"Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T13:10:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devdatkumar-vs-state-on-21-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Devdatkumar vs State on 21 March, 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\/96757","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=96757"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96757\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}