{"id":164365,"date":"2010-06-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-14T23:44:47","modified_gmt":"2019-03-14T18:14:47","slug":"shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, R. M. Savant<\/div>\n<pre>                                          1\n\n    lgc\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                         WRIT PETITION NO. 1143  OF  2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n          Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale                ]\n          Adult, Occupation-Agriculture              ]\n          Alabad, Tal Kagal, District Kolhapur       ]... Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                     Versus\n\n          1    State of Maharashtra                   ]\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n               [summons to be served on the learned]\n               Additional Government Pleader\n                               ig                     ]\n               appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n               under order XXVII,                     ]\n               Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n                             \n               Code 1908]                             ]\n                                                      ]\n          2    Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n               Old Rajawada, Kolhapur                 ]\n                \n\n\n               [summons to be served on the learned]\n               Additional Government Pleader          ]\n             \n\n\n\n               appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n               under order XXVII,                     ]\n               Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n\n\n\n\n\n               Code 1908 ]                            ]\n                                                      ]\n          3    Divisional Commissioner,               ]\n               Pune Division, Pune                    ]\n               [summons to be served on the learned]\n\n\n\n\n\n               Additional Government Pleader          ]\n               appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n               under order XXVII,                     ]\n               Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n               Code 1908                              ]...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:56 :::\n                                    2\n\n                              WITH \n                 WRIT PETITION NO. 2319  OF  2010 \n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    1   Shri Babaso Hyachand Manoli              ]\n        Adult Occ :- Agriculturist               ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n        Residing at Alabad,                      ]\n        Tal Kagal, District Kolhapur             ]\n                                                 ]\n    2   Shri Abdulmajid Hyachand Manoli          ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n        Adult Occ :- Agriculturist               ]\n        Residing at Alabad,                      ]\n        Tal Kagal, District Kolhapur             ]\n                                                 ]\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n    3   Shri Najirahmad Hyachand Manoli          ]\n        Adult Occ :- Agriculturist\n                        ig                       ]\n        Residing at Alabad,                      ]\n        Tal Kagal, District Kolhapur             ]... Petitioners.\n                      \n             Versus\n\n    1   State of Maharashtra                   ]\n        [summons to be served on the           ]\n          \n\n\n        Learned Government Pleader             ]\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra     ]\n       \n\n\n\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908 ]                            ]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                               ]\n    2   The District Collector,                ]\n        District Kolhapur                      ]\n        [summons to be served on the           ]\n        learned Government Pleader             ]\n\n\n\n\n\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908 ]                            ]\n                                               ]\n    3   Special Land Acquisition Officer       ]\n        Non12, Old Rajwada, Kolhapur           ]\n        District : Kolhapur.                   ]...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:56 :::\n                                     3\n\n\n                               WITH  \n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1139  OF  2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n                                               \n    Shri. Dattu Hari Barkale                   ]\n    Adult, Occupation-Agriculture              ]\n    Alabad, Tal Kagal, District Kolhapur       ]... Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n               Versus\n\n    1    State of Maharashtra                   ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n                        \n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908]                             ]\n                       \n                                                ]\n    2    Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n         Old Rajawada, Kolhapur                 ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n          \n\n\n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n       \n\n\n\n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908 ]                            ]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                ]\n    3    Divisional Commissioner,               ]\n         Pune Division, Pune                    ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908                              ]...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:56 :::\n                                     4\n\n\n                               WITH  \n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1141  OF  2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n                                               \n    Shri. Adinath Ratnappa Utture              ]\n    Adult, Occupation-Agriculture              ]\n    Alabad, Tal Kagal, District Kolhapur       ]... Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n               Versus\n\n    1    State of Maharashtra                   ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n                        \n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908]                             ]\n                       \n                                                ]\n    2    Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n         Old Rajawada, Kolhapur                 ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n          \n\n\n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n       \n\n\n\n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908 ]                            ]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                ]\n    3    Divisional Commissioner,               ]\n         Pune Division, Pune                    ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908]                             ]...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                     5\n\n                               WITH  \n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1142  OF  2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n    Smt Shamunisa Najirkhan Inamdar            ]\n    Residing at Alabad, Tal Kagal              ]\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    District Kolhapur                          ]\n    Through the Power of Attorney Holder       ]\n    Shri Ayubkhan Najirkhan Inamdar            ]\n    age about 35 years, Occ : Agriculture,     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    Residing at Alabad,                        ]\n    Tal : Kagal, District Kolhapur             ]... Petitioner.\n\n               Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    1    Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n                        \n         Old Rajawada, Kolhapur                 ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n                       \n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908 ]                            ]\n          \n\n\n                                                ]\n    2    State of Maharashtra,                  ]\n       \n\n\n\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908]                             ]...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               WITH  \n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1144  OF  2002\n\n    Shri. Chandrakant Adinath Utture           ]\n    Adult, Occupation-Agriculture              ]\n    Alabad, Tal Kagal, District Kolhapur       ]... Petitioner.\n\n               Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                    6\n\n    1   State of Maharashtra                   ]\n        [summons to be served on the learned]\n        Additional Government Pleader          ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908]                             ]\n                                               ]\n    2   Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n        Old Rajawada, Kolhapur                 ]\n        [summons to be served on the learned]\n        Additional Government Pleader          ]\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n                       \n        Code 1908 ]                            ]\n                                               ]\n    3   Divisional Commissioner,               ]\n                      \n        Pune Division, Pune                    ]\n        [summons to be served on the learned]\n        Additional Government Pleader          ]\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n          \n\n\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n       \n\n\n\n        Code 1908 ]                            ]...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n                             WITH  \n                 WRIT PETITION NO. 2663  OF  2009\n\n    1   Shri Sheetal Appasaheb Utture         ]\n        Age 32 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n\n\n\n\n\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n                                              ]\n    2   Shri Balkrishan Maruti Barkale        ]\n        Age 42 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                   7\n\n    3   Shri Mohammad Pasha Abdul Desai       ]\n        Age 56 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n                                              ]\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    4   Shri Ashok Bapu Chaugule              ]\n        Age 55 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                                              ]\n    5   Shri Ashok Bandu Khandekar            ]\n        Age 50 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n                       ig                     ]\n    6   Shri Gundu Arjun Kamathe              ]\n        since deceased through his legal heir ]\n        Shri Nana Gundu Kamathe               ]\n                     \n        Age 60 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n                                              ]\n          \n\n\n    7   Shri Mahadeo Gundu Kharade            ]\n        Age 67 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n       \n\n\n\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n        Through the Power of Attorney Holder]\n\n\n\n\n\n        Shri Dhanji Mahadeo Kharade           ]\n        Age 35 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n                                              ]\n\n\n\n\n\n    8   Shri Dadu Kondiba Khandekar           ]\n        Adult, Occ : Agriculturist            ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n        Through the Power of Attorney Holder]\n        Shri Ramchandra Dagadu Chougule ]\n        Adult, Occ : Agriculturist            ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                     8\n\n\n    9     Mrs.Hausabai Vishnu Barvekar         ]\n          Adult, Occ : Agriculturist           ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n          Residing at : Alabad                 ]\n          Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n          Through the Power of Attorney Holder]\n          Shri Sandeep Dhondiram Sarawade ]\n          Age 22 years, Occ : Agriculturist    ]\n          Residing at : Alabad                 ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n          Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur     ]\n                                               ]\n    (All through Power of Attorney Holders viz ]\n    Shri Balaso @ Balkrishan Maruti Barkale ]\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    Viz. Petitoner No.2 and Shri Dhanaji       ]\n    Mahadeo Karade viz. Petitioner No.7 above ]... Petitioners.\n                        \n               Versus\n                       \n    1    State of Maharashtra                   ]\n         [summons to be served on the           ]\n         Learned Government Pleader             ]\n          \n\n\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra     ]\n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n       \n\n\n\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908]                             ]\n                                                ]\n\n\n\n\n\n    2    The District Collector,                ]\n         District Kolhapur                      ]\n         [summons to be served on the           ]\n         Learned Government Pleader             ]\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908 ]                            ]\n                                                ]\n    3    Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n         Old Rajwada, Kolhapur Dist.Kolhapur ]\n         [summons to be served on the           ]\n         Learned Government Pleader             ]\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                    9\n\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908]                             ]...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n                                              \n                             WITH  \n                 WRIT PETITION NO. 2720  OF  2010\n\n    1   Shri Annaso Santaram Chougale         ]\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n        since deceased                        ]\n        Shri Prakash Annaso Chougle           ]\n        Age 39 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n                        ig                    ]\n    2   Shri Tukaram Santaram Chougale        ]\n        since deceased                        ]\n        Shri Sanjay Tukaram Chougale          ]\n                      \n        Age 42 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n          \n\n\n    3   Shri Vasant Santaram Chougle          ]\n        Age 65 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n       \n\n\n\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n                                              ]\n\n\n\n\n\n    4   Shri Dnyandev Santaram Chougale       ]\n        since deceased                        ]\n        Shri Vinayak Dnynadev Chougale        ]\n        Age 25 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n\n\n\n\n\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]... Petitioners.\n\n\n             Versus\n\n    1   State of Maharashtra                  ]\n        [summons to be served on the          ]\n        Learned Government Pleader            ]\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra    ]\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                    10\n\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908]                             ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n                                               ]\n    2   The District Collector,                ]\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n        District Kolhapur                      ]\n        [summons to be served on the           ]\n        Learned Government Pleader             ]\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908 ]                            ]\n                                               ]\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n    3   Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n        Old Rajwada, Kolhapur Dist.Kolhapur ]\n                       \n        [summons to be served on the           ]\n        Learned Government Pleader             ]\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n                      \n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908]                             ]...Respondents.\n          \n\n\n                             WITH  \n                 WRIT PETITION NO. 2725  OF  2010\n       \n\n\n\n    1   Shri Kiran Vitthal Chougle            ]\n        Age 32 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n\n\n\n\n\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n                                              ]\n    2   Shri Baburao Vitthal Chougle          ]\n        Age 55 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n\n\n\n\n\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n\n    3   Shri Bajirao Vitthal Chougale         ]\n        since deceased                        ]\n        Smt.Janabai Bajirao Chougale          ]\n        Age 45 years, Occ : Agriculturist     ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                  ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur      ]\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                    11\n\n                                                 ]\n    4   Shri Mahadev Vitthal Chougale            ]\n        Age 42 years, Occ : Agriculturist        ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n        Residing at : Alabad                     ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur         ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                                                 ]\n    5   Shri Hindurao Vitthal Chougale           ]\n        Age 35 years, Occ : Agriculturist        ]\n        Residing at : Alabad                     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n        Tal : Kagal, District : Kolhapur         ]\n                                                 ]... Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n             Versus\n\n    1\n                       \n        State of Maharashtra\n        [summons to be served on the \n                                               ]\n                                               ]\n        Learned Government Pleader             ]\n                      \n        appearing for State of Maharashtra     ]\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908]                             ]\n          \n\n\n                                               ]\n    2   The District Collector,                ]\n       \n\n\n\n        District Kolhapur                      ]\n        [summons to be served on the           ]\n        Learnedl Government Pleader            ]\n\n\n\n\n\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908 ]                            ]\n                                               ]\n\n\n\n\n\n    3   Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n        Old Rajwada, Kolhapur Dist.Kolhapur ]\n        [summons to be served on the           ]\n        Learned Government Pleader             ]\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908]                             ]...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                12\n\n\n\n\n                            WITH  \n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                WRIT PETITION NO. 2894  OF  2001\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    1   Shri Madhukar Shankar Mutnale    ]\n        adult,                           ]\n        Occ : Agriculturist              ]\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Residing at : Senapati Kapshi    ]\n        Tal : Kagal                      ]\n        District Kolhapur                ]\n                                         ]\n\n\n\n\n                               \n    2   Shri Narayan Ramchandra Ghorpade ]\n        adult,        ig                 ]\n        Occ : Agriculturist              ]\n        Residing at : Senapati Kapshi    ]\n        Tal : Kagal                      ]\n                    \n        District Kolhapur                ]\n                                         ]\n    3   Shri Appasaheb Baburao Rachoti   ]\n        adult,                           ]\n          \n\n\n        Occ : Agriculturist              ]\n        Residing at : Senapati Kapshi    ]\n       \n\n\n\n        Tal : Kagal                      ]\n        District Kolhapur                ]\n                                         ]\n\n\n\n\n\n    4   Shri Anant Ishwara Shinge        ]\n        adult,                           ]\n        Occ : Agriculturist              ]\n        Residing at : Senapati Kapshi    ]\n        Tal : Kagal                      ]\n\n\n\n\n\n        District Kolhapur                ]\n                                         ]\n    5   Shri Santosh Surendar Saundatte  ]\n        adult,                           ]\n        Occ : Agriculturist              ]\n        Residing at : Senapati Kapshi    ]\n        Tal : Kagal                      ]\n        District Kolhapur                ]\n                                         ]\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                    13\n\n    6    Shri Chandrakant Laxman Saundatte   ]\n         adult,                              ]\n         Occ : Agriculturist                 ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi       ]\n         Tal : Kagal                         ]\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n         District Kolhapur                   ]\n                                             ]\n    7    Shri Ramchandra Maruti Naik         ]\n         adult,                              ]\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n         Occ : Agriculturist                 ]\n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi       ]\n         Tal : Kagal                         ]\n         District Kolhapur                   ]\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n                                             ]\n    8    Shri Vijay Narayan Bhangore\n                        ig                   ]\n         adult,                              ]\n         Occ : Agriculturist                 ]\n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi       ]\n                      \n         Tal : Kagal                         ]\n         District Kolhapur                   ]\n                                             ]\n    9    Shri Shivaji Maruti Nawale          ]\n          \n\n\n         adult,                              ]\n         Occ : Agriculturist                 ]\n       \n\n\n\n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi       ]\n         Tal : Kagal                         ]\n         District Kolhapur                   ]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             ]\n    10   Shri Maruti Linkappa Naikwade       ]\n         adult,                              ]\n         Occ : Agriculturist                 ]\n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi       ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         Tal : Kagal                         ]\n         District Kolhapur                   ]\n                                             ]\n    11   Shri Babasaheb Shankar Mutnale      ]\n         adult,                              ]\n         Occ : Agriculturist                 ]\n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi       ]\n         Tal : Kagal                         ]\n         District Kolhapur                   ]\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                    14\n\n\n    12   Shri Raosaheb Annasaheb Patil      ]\n         adult,                             ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n         Occ : Agriculturist                ]\n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi      ]\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n         Tal : Kagal                        ]\n         District Kolhapur                  ]\n                                            ]\n    13   Smt.Akkabai Malgunda Patil         ]\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n         adult,                             ]\n         Occ : Agriculturist                ]\n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi      ]\n         Tal : Kagal                        ]\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n         District Kolhapur                  ]\n                        ig                  ]\n    14   Shri Vaibhav Tattyasaheb Patil     ]\n         adult,                             ]\n         Occ : Agriculturist                ]\n                      \n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi      ]\n         Tal : Kagal                        ]\n         District Kolhapur                  ]\n                                            ]\n       \n\n\n    15   Smt.Shankutala Tattyasaheb Patil   ]\n         adult,                             ]\n    \n\n\n\n         Occ : Agriculturist                ]\n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi      ]\n         Tal : Kagal                        ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         District Kolhapur                  ]\n                                            ]\n    16   Shri Chandrakant Vijay Tashildar   ]\n         adult,                             ]\n         Occ : Agriculturist                ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         Residing at : Senapati Kapshi      ]\n         Tal : Kagal                        ]\n         District Kolhapur                  ]...Petitioners\n\n\n              Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                     15\n\n    1    State of Maharashtra                   ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n         Code 1908]                             ]\n                                                ]\n    2    The Divisional Commissioner,           ]\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n         Pune Division, Pune.                   ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n                        \n         Code 1908 ]                            ]\n                                                ]\n    3    Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n                       \n         (Old Rajwada, Kolhapur)                ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n         Additional Government Pleader          ]\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n          \n\n\n         under order XXVII,                     ]\n         Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n       \n\n\n\n         Code 1908]                             ]...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              WITH  \n                  WRIT PETITION NO. 2896  OF  2001\n\n    Shri Manohar Jyoti Pawar                   ]\n    At &amp; Post Baleghol                         ]\n\n\n\n\n\n    Tal : Kagal,                               ]\n    District Kolhapur                          ]...Petitioner\n\n              Versus\n\n    1    State of Maharashtra                ]\n         [summons to be served on the learned]\n         Additional Government Pleader       ]\n         appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n\n\n\n                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                     16\n\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908]                             ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n    2   The District Rehabilitation Officer,   ]\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n        Kolhapur,                              ]\n        [summons to be served on the learned]\n        Additional Government Pleader          ]\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908 ]                            ]\n                                               ]\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n    3   The Divisional Commissioner,           ]\n        Pune Division, Pune.\n                        ig                     ]\n        [summons to be served on the learned]\n        Additional Government Pleader          ]\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n                      \n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908 ]                            ]\n                                               ]\n          \n\n\n    4   Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n        (Old Rajwada), Kolhapur                ]\n       \n\n\n\n        [summons to be served on the learned]\n        Additional Government Pleader          ]\n        appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n\n\n\n\n\n        under order XXVII,                     ]\n        Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n        Code 1908]                             ]...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              WITH  \n                  WRIT PETITION NO. 2900  OF  2001\n\n    1   Shri Vithu Krishna Pawar               ]\n    2   Shri Dyanu Krishna Pawar               ]\n    3   Shri Balwant Krishna Pawar             ]\n                                               ]\n        At &amp; Post Balikire                     ]\n        Tal : Kagal, District Kolhapur.        ]...Petitioners.\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                         17\n\n\n                Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n    1     State of Maharashtra                   ]\n          [summons to be served on the learned]\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n          Additional Government Pleader          ]\n          appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n          under order XXVII,                     ]\n          Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n          Code 1908]                             ]\n                                                 ]\n    2     The State Divisional Commissioner, ]\n          Pune Division, Pune.                   ]\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n          [summons to be served on the learned]\n          Additional Government Pleader\n                            ig                   ]\n          appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n          under order XXVII,                     ]\n          Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n                          \n          Code 1908 ]                            ]\n                                                 ]\n    3     Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12]\n          (Old Rajwada), Kolhapur                ]\n          \n\n\n          District Kolhapur.                     ]\n          [summons to be served on the learned]\n       \n\n\n\n          Additional Government Pleader          ]\n          appearing for State of Maharashtra ]\n          under order XXVII,                     ]\n\n\n\n\n\n          Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ]\n          Code 1908]                             ]...Respondents.\n\n\n    Mr.   A   V   Anturkar   with   Mr.   S   B   Deshmukh   a\/w   Mr.   Tanaji \n\n\n\n\n\n    Mathugade for the Petitioners\n    Mr. C R Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::\n                                              18\n\n\n                              CORAM :  A. M. KHANWILKAR,\n                                        R. M. SAVANT, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n<p>                              Judgment Reserved on : 21st April 2010<br \/>\n                              Judgment Delivered on : 07th June 2010 <\/p>\n<p>    JUDGMENT [ PER R M SAVANT, J]  :\n<\/p>\n<p>    1             The   above   Writ   Petition   No.1143   of   2002   and   the <\/p>\n<p>    companion   Writ   Petitions   impugn   the   Notification   dated   26th  July <\/p>\n<p>    1995   issued   under   the   Maharashtra   Project   Affected   Persons <\/p>\n<p>    Rehabilitation Act, 1986, (herein after referred to as &#8220;the Act of 1986&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    for brevities sake),   by which notification the slab applicable for the <\/p>\n<p>    project in question was changed from 3 hectares 23 ares to 1 hectare <\/p>\n<p>    61 ares for the acquisition of the lands in the benefited zone.   The <\/p>\n<p>    Petitions also challenge the declaration   dated 14th  December 2001 <\/p>\n<p>    issued   under   Section   6   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   (herein   after <\/p>\n<p>    referred to as &#8220;The L.A. Act&#8221; for brevities sake), that the lands which <\/p>\n<p>    are the subject matter of the above Petitions are sought to be acquired <\/p>\n<p>    for the rehabilitation of the project affected persons of the Chikotara <\/p>\n<p>    project.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               19<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    2             The   facts   necessary   to   be   cited   for   adjudication   of   the <\/p>\n<p>    above Petitions can be stated thus :-\n<\/p>\n<p>                  Writ Petition No.1443 of 2002 would be treated as a lead <\/p>\n<p>    matter and the facts in the said Petition would be referred to for the <\/p>\n<p>    sake of convenience.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  The   Petitioner   claims   to   be   the   owner   of   the   property <\/p>\n<p>    bearing Gat No.127 [part] admeasuring 28 ares, situated at village <\/p>\n<p>    Alabad,   Tal.Kagal,   District   Kolhapur.   The   lands   in   the   said   village <\/p>\n<p>    Alabad fall within the benefited zone of the irrigation project known <\/p>\n<p>    as the Chikotara project.   By virtue of the notification issued under <\/p>\n<p>    Section 11(1) of the Act of 1986, the provisions of the said Act of <\/p>\n<p>    1986 have been made applicable to the Chikotara project.   The said <\/p>\n<p>    notification issued under Section 11(1) has been issued and published <\/p>\n<p>    in the Government Gazette on 15th September 1990.  In terms of the <\/p>\n<p>    scheme of the said Act of 1986, the notices under Section 13(2) of the <\/p>\n<p>    said Act  of  1986  were  issued by  the  Collector of Kolhapur  on 20th <\/p>\n<p>    September 1993, 22nd  November 1993 and 3rd  December 1993. The <\/p>\n<p>    said notices were inter-alia for the purpose of identifying the area of <\/p>\n<p>    the   benefited   zone,   affected   zone   and   the   slab   applicable.     After <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                20<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    following   the   procedure   under   subsection   (2)   of   Section   13,   a <\/p>\n<p>    notification was published under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1986 on <\/p>\n<p>    4th  March   1994.     In   terms  of  the   said  notification,   the   area  of  the <\/p>\n<p>    affected   zone   was   mentioned   as   261   hectares   and   the   area   of   the <\/p>\n<p>    benefited zone was mentioned as 7887 hectares and 75 ares and in so <\/p>\n<p>    far as the slab is concerned, the slab of 3 hectares 34 ares mentioned <\/p>\n<p>    in Part II of the Schedule was made applicable to the said Chikotara <\/p>\n<p>    project for the purpose of acquisition of land in the benefited zone.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  Thereafter   another   notification   under   subsection   (1)   of <\/p>\n<p>    Section 13 dated 26th July 1995 came to be issued on 26th July 1995 <\/p>\n<p>    which   was  also published in  the  Government  Gazette  on  the  same <\/p>\n<p>    day.     By   the   said   notification,   the   slab   of   1   hectare   and   61   ares <\/p>\n<p>    mentioned in Part II of the Schedule to the said Act of 1986 was made <\/p>\n<p>    applicable for the purpose of acquisition of the land in the benefited <\/p>\n<p>    zone.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3             In   terms   of   the   scheme   of   acquisition   of   land,   a <\/p>\n<p>    notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act  came to be issued on <\/p>\n<p>    21st  September   2000.     After   following   the   gamut   of   processes <\/p>\n<p>    mentioned in the L.A. Act, declaration under Section 6 came to be <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             21<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    issued   on   14th  December   2001   which   was   published   in   the <\/p>\n<p>    Maharashtra   Government     Gazette   on   19th  December   2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Thereafter notices under Sections 9(3) and 9(4) of the L.A. Act came <\/p>\n<p>    to be issued to the Petitioner on 15th  January 2002.   As mentioned <\/p>\n<p>    herein above the notification under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1986 <\/p>\n<p>    dated 26th  July 1995 and the declaration under Section 6 dated 14th <\/p>\n<p>    December   2001   issued   under   the   L.A.   Act   qua   the   lands   of   the <\/p>\n<p>    Petitioners, which have been impugned in the above Petition and the <\/p>\n<p>    companion matters.\n<\/p>\n<p>    4            On   behalf   of   the   Respondents   three   Affidavits   in   Reply <\/p>\n<p>    have been filed.   Out of which two have been filed by one Pradip R <\/p>\n<p>    Katkar, District Resettlement Officer, Kolhapur which are dated 17th <\/p>\n<p>    April 2007 and 28th  June 2007 and one has been filed by Dr.Swati <\/p>\n<p>    Deshmukh, Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.12, Kolhapur which is <\/p>\n<p>    dated 16th April 2007.  In the Affidavit in Reply dated 28th June 2007, <\/p>\n<p>    it has been mentioned that though the land slab  of 3 hectares and 23 <\/p>\n<p>    ares   was   made   applicable   to   the   said   Chikotara   project   for   the <\/p>\n<p>    purpose of acquisition of land in the benefited zone, since the land as <\/p>\n<p>    per the slab of 3 hectares and 23 ares was not proving to be sufficient <\/p>\n<p>    for the purpose of allotment to the rehabilitation of project affected <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              22<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    persons, it was decided to reduce the slab from 3 hectares 23 ares to <\/p>\n<p>    1 hectare 61 ares.  It has further been stated in the said affidavit that <\/p>\n<p>    the State Government granted approval for reduction of the said slab <\/p>\n<p>    from 3 hectares 23 ares to 1 hectare 61 ares which was accordingly <\/p>\n<p>    communicated to the District Resettlement Officer by   a letter dated <\/p>\n<p>    30th  September 1995.   In so far as 2nd  notification is concerned, the <\/p>\n<p>    said   affidavit   states   that   the   notification   under   subsection   (1)   of <\/p>\n<p>    Section 13 of the Act of 1986 was issued on 26th July 1995, reducing <\/p>\n<p>    the slab from 3 hectares 23 ares to 1 hectare 61 ares and accordingly <\/p>\n<p>    a proposal for acquisition in terms of the reduced slab was submitted <\/p>\n<p>    to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 13th March 1996 for taking <\/p>\n<p>    further steps in respect of the acquisition of the lands.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  Now coming to the affidavit of Dr. Swati Deshmukh, the <\/p>\n<p>    Special   Land   Acquisition   Officer   No.12,   Kolhapur     dated   16th  April <\/p>\n<p>    2007,   the   dates   and   events,     encompassing   the   notification   under <\/p>\n<p>    Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6, leading to passing of the <\/p>\n<p>    Award dated 21st January 2004 have been mentioned.  The sum and <\/p>\n<p>    substance of the said affidavit is that the said affidavit discloses that <\/p>\n<p>    the final award in respect of the lands in question has been passed on <\/p>\n<p>    21st Januar 2004 after following the gamut of processes mentioned in <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              23<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    the   L.A.   Act.     Hence   indubitably,     during   pendency   of   the   above <\/p>\n<p>    Petitions,   the   award   has   been   passed   in   respect   of   the   lands   in <\/p>\n<p>    question.\n<\/p>\n<p>    5             We   have   heard   Shri   A   V   Anturkar,   the   learned   counsel <\/p>\n<p>    appearing for the Petitioners in all the above Petitions and Shri C R <\/p>\n<p>    Sonawane, the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in all the <\/p>\n<p>    above Petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>    6             On behalf of the Petitioners, it was principally contended <\/p>\n<p>    by Shri Anturkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, <\/p>\n<p>    that the Respondents could not have reduced the slab mentioned in <\/p>\n<p>    the notification dated 4th  March 1994 which was 3 hectares and 23 <\/p>\n<p>    ares   to   1   hectare   61   ares   without   following   the   procedure.     The <\/p>\n<p>    learned   counsel   for   the   Petitioners   submitted   that   though   in <\/p>\n<p>    subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Act of 1986 there is a reference to <\/p>\n<p>    the   clauses   (a)   and   (b)   only   of   subsection   (1),   since   the   slab <\/p>\n<p>    mentioned   in   clause   (c)   forms   an   integral   part   of   the   notification <\/p>\n<p>    under Section 13(1), the Collector was obliged to issue notices under <\/p>\n<p>    Section 13(2) in respect of clause (c) also if any change  in the slab <\/p>\n<p>    was to be effected.     The learned counsel submitted that since the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                24<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    objections and suggestions have to be invited in respect of clauses (a) <\/p>\n<p>    and (b), it would necessarily follow that if there is a change in the <\/p>\n<p>    slab which is covered by clause (c), the Collector is obliged to follow <\/p>\n<p>    the procedure prescribed in subsection (2) in effecting the change in <\/p>\n<p>    the slab.  He further submitted that clauses (a) and (b) though they <\/p>\n<p>    are only for the purpose of identifying the lands which come within <\/p>\n<p>    the   affected   zone   and   benefited   zone,   it   would   not   be   correct   to <\/p>\n<p>    restrict the procedure envisaged in subsection (2) of Section 13, to <\/p>\n<p>    clauses (a) and (b) only, as the slabs applicable, are also an important <\/p>\n<p>    facet of the acquisition. The learned counsel submitted that after the <\/p>\n<p>    notice   under   subsection   (2)   of   Section   13,   the   agriculturist   would <\/p>\n<p>    know whether he would be affected by the proposed notification or <\/p>\n<p>    not   under   subsection   (1)   of   Section   13   and,   therefore,   unless   the <\/p>\n<p>    notice mentions the proposed slab, no agriculturist would know as to <\/p>\n<p>    whether he would be affected by acquisition or not and, therefore, a <\/p>\n<p>    notice   under   subsection   (2)   of   Section   13   must   be   given   also   in <\/p>\n<p>    respect   of   clause   (c)  of   subsection   (1)  of   Section   13   of  the   Act  of <\/p>\n<p>    1986.     The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   Petitioners,   further <\/p>\n<p>    submitted   that   reading   of   Sections   13(3)   and   13(4)   provides   and <\/p>\n<p>    indicates that for changing any parameter in the notification issued <\/p>\n<p>    under section 13(1), the procedure contemplated in subsection (2) of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           25<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    Section 13 has to be followed.  The learned counsel lastly submitted <\/p>\n<p>    that if it is construed that Sections 13(3)  and 13(4) do not apply to <\/p>\n<p>    the modification\/change in slab,  then the logical corollary would be <\/p>\n<p>    that though a change could be effected as regards clauses (a) and (b) <\/p>\n<p>    of Section 13(1), the intent of the legislature is clear that no change is <\/p>\n<p>    permitted in respect of the slab mentioned in the clause (c) of Section <\/p>\n<p>    13(1), i.e. there can be no change in the slab. The learned counsel <\/p>\n<p>    therefore submitted that the change in slab effected without following <\/p>\n<p>    the procedure is therefore illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    7            Shri   Anturkar,   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n<p>    Petitioners,   relied  upon   a  Judgment   of  the  Apex  Court   reported  in <\/p>\n<p>    1970(1) SCC 125  in the matter of  Narendrajit Singh and another <\/p>\n<p>    v\/s.  The State  of  U.P. And another.    The  learned counsel  for the <\/p>\n<p>    Petitioners also relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of <\/p>\n<p>    this   Court   reported   in  2004(3)   Bom.C.R.   328  in   the   matter   of <\/p>\n<p>    Trimbakrao Vithalrao Dhokane v\/s. Sate of Maharashtra and ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>    as also the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in <\/p>\n<p>    CDJ 2004 BHC 337 in the matter of Shri Appa Ganpati Jadhav v\/s <\/p>\n<p>    Special   Land   Acquisition   Officer   and   ors.  in   support   of   his <\/p>\n<p>    contention that in the matters of land acquisition strict adherence to <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                       ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              26<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    the   procedural   requirement   is   necessary   and   any   deviation   would <\/p>\n<p>    vitiate the said proceedings and prove fatal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  In so far as the Judgment of the Apex Court is concerned, <\/p>\n<p>    in   the   said   case   urgency   clause   was   applied.     In   that   case, <\/p>\n<p>    notifications   issued   under   section   4   suffered   from   a   very   serious <\/p>\n<p>    defect inasmuch as the locality wherein the lands were situated was <\/p>\n<p>    not   specified.     The   notification   merely   stated   that   the   lands <\/p>\n<p>    mentioned   in   the   schedule   were   needed.   The   schedule   in   its   turn <\/p>\n<p>    though   it   contained   the   headings   District,   Pargana,   Mauza   and <\/p>\n<p>    approximate area, gave no particulars of the same and all that was <\/p>\n<p>    mentioned by way of a note was that the plan of the land might be <\/p>\n<p>    inspected in the office of the Collector of Ramur.  The said defect  was <\/p>\n<p>    sought   to   be   rectified   by   notification   under   section   6   which   was <\/p>\n<p>    issued  within   fortnight   after   the   notification   under   section   4.     The <\/p>\n<p>    Apex Court in the fact situation of the said case, observed that any <\/p>\n<p>    notification which is the first step to deprive a man of his property <\/p>\n<p>    must be strictly construed and the courts ought not tolerate any lapse <\/p>\n<p>    on the part of the acquiring authority in the issue of such notification, <\/p>\n<p>    if it be of a serious nature.  The Apex Court held that the defect in a <\/p>\n<p>    notification   under   section   4(1)   cannot   be   cured   by   giving   full <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              27<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    particulars in the notification under section 6(1).  The Apex Court, in <\/p>\n<p>    the fact situation of the said case, therefore, quashed and set aside the <\/p>\n<p>    acquisition proceedings on the said grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  In so far as the Judgment of the Division Bench of this <\/p>\n<p>    Court reported in 2004 (3) Bom. C.R. 328 is concerned, the Division <\/p>\n<p>    Bench has held that unless person interested in the land which has <\/p>\n<p>    been notified under section 4(1) of the L. A. Act, is given opportunity <\/p>\n<p>    of being heard, the authority cannot proceed further.   The Division <\/p>\n<p>    Bench held that the heart of section 5-A of the Act is the hearing of <\/p>\n<p>    the   objections   and   under   sub-section   (2)   personal   hearing   is <\/p>\n<p>    mandatorily   provided   and   it   does   not   depend   upon   demand   for <\/p>\n<p>    personal hearing. Since the Petitioner in that case was not given an <\/p>\n<p>    opportunity   of   hearing   before   making   recommendations   to   the <\/p>\n<p>    Commissioner for approval of the draft notification under section 6 of <\/p>\n<p>    the  Act,  the  said  declaration  under  section   6  was  quashed  and  set <\/p>\n<p>    aside   and   the   authorities   were   directed   to   hear   the   Petitioner   as <\/p>\n<p>    contemplated under section 5-A of the Act and thereafter to proceed <\/p>\n<p>    with acquisition.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              28<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                  Now coming to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this <\/p>\n<p>    Court reported in CDJ 2004 BHC 337 on which reliance was placed <\/p>\n<p>    by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, this was a case where a <\/p>\n<p>    declaration   under   section   11   of   the   Resettlement   Act,   1976   was <\/p>\n<p>    already made when the said Act was in force and a particular slab <\/p>\n<p>    from Part II of Schedule was already applied namely of 8 acres for <\/p>\n<p>    acquiring  land  from   the  benefited  zone   for  the  resettlement  of  the <\/p>\n<p>    project   affected   persons   of   Urmodi   Major   Irrigation   Project.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Thereafter Rehabilitation Act, 1986 came into force.  Section 26 of the <\/p>\n<p>    Rehabilitation   Act,   of   1986   which   is   the   Repeal   and   saving   clause <\/p>\n<p>    saved actions taken under the Resettlement Act, 1976.  A notification <\/p>\n<p>    under section 13(1) of the said Act was issued on 1st December 1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Similar notification was issued on the same date applying the slab of <\/p>\n<p>    2 H. 42 Rs. of Part II of the Schedule. The argument of the Petitioner <\/p>\n<p>    in the said case was that the procedure under Section 13(2) of the <\/p>\n<p>    Rehabilitation Act 1986 was not followed, and hence, no notification <\/p>\n<p>    under Section 13(1) could have been issued and therefore there could <\/p>\n<p>    not be any acquisition under the L.A. Act.   The notifications under <\/p>\n<p>    sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act were therefore challenged on the said <\/p>\n<p>    grounds.   The said argument of the Petitioner was negatived by the <\/p>\n<p>    Division Bench by holding that since the declaration under section 11 <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               29<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    had already been made under the Resettlement Act 1976 and in view <\/p>\n<p>    of section 26 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1986, the said action being <\/p>\n<p>    saved there was no requirement to issue a notification under section <\/p>\n<p>    13(2)   inviting   objections   and   suggestions   and   hence   there   was <\/p>\n<p>    compliance of Section 13 of the Act of 1986.  The notification issued <\/p>\n<p>    under section 4 and the declaration under section 6 in that case were <\/p>\n<p>    therefore upheld by the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>    8             On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Sonawane, the learned <\/p>\n<p>    AGP, submitted that the Act of 1986 has been made applicable to the <\/p>\n<p>    Chikotara   project   and   the   notification   has   accordingly   been   issued <\/p>\n<p>    under Section 11(1) of the Act 1986. The learned AGP submitted that <\/p>\n<p>    the   notification   under   Section   13(1)   of   the   Act   of   1986   dated   4th <\/p>\n<p>    March 1994 was issued after following the procedure for the same by <\/p>\n<p>    inviting objections and suggestions under Section 13(2). The learned <\/p>\n<p>    AGP   submitted   that   the   said   notification   inter   alia   specified   the <\/p>\n<p>    affected zone and the benefited zone and fixed the slab as 3 hectares <\/p>\n<p>    23 ares, considering the land that is  required for rehabilitation of the <\/p>\n<p>    persons   affected   by   the   said   project.       The   learned   AGP   further <\/p>\n<p>    submitted   that   the   lands   which   come   within   the   affected   and <\/p>\n<p>    benefited   zones   are   the   determining   factors   for   application   of   a <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                30<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    particular slab.  He therefore submitted that it is on the said basis that <\/p>\n<p>    the authorities chose one of the slabs mentioned in the Schedule of <\/p>\n<p>    the Act of 1986.  The learned AGP submitted that in the instant case, <\/p>\n<p>    initially   the   slab   of       3   hectares   and   23   ares   was   thought   to   be <\/p>\n<p>    appropriate   considering   the   requirement   of   lands   in   the   benefited <\/p>\n<p>    zone, however in terms of the said slab the land was falling short of <\/p>\n<p>    the requirement for the resettlement of the project affected persons of <\/p>\n<p>    the said Chikotara project, therefore, according to the learned AGP <\/p>\n<p>    the slab was lowered to 1 hectare 61 ares which has been approved <\/p>\n<p>    by   the   State   Government.   The   learned   AGP   submitted   that <\/p>\n<p>    considering the purport and intent  of the Act of 1986, the legislature <\/p>\n<p>    has     consciously   limited   the   notice   to   only   clauses   (a)   and   (b)   of <\/p>\n<p>    Section   13(1)   of   the   Act   of   1986,   as   clauses   (a)   and   (b)   are   the <\/p>\n<p>    determining   factor   and   depending   on   the   area,   in   question,   a <\/p>\n<p>    particular slab is applied.  The learned AGP submitted that accepting <\/p>\n<p>    the contention of the Petitioners would amount to reading into the <\/p>\n<p>    provision   something   which   Legislature   did   not   contemplate.     The <\/p>\n<p>    learned AGP submitted that in the instant cases, as mentioned in the <\/p>\n<p>    affidavit of Dr.Swati Deshmukh, the final award has been passed on <\/p>\n<p>    21st  January   2004   during   the   pendency   of   the   above   Petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>    However,   though   the   final   Award   has   been   passed,   the   Petitioners <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              31<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    have   not   chosen   to   challenge   the   said   acquisition   proceedings   by <\/p>\n<p>    carrying   out   any   amendment   to   the   Petitions.   The   learned   AGP <\/p>\n<p>    submitted   that   this   Court     should   not   interfere   in   the   acquisition <\/p>\n<p>    proceedings   in   its   writ   jurisdiction   under   Article   226   of   the <\/p>\n<p>    Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>    9             We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and <\/p>\n<p>    bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>    10            In the context of the issue which arises viz. whether for a <\/p>\n<p>    change in the slab mentioned in the notification issued under Section <\/p>\n<p>    13(1), procedure under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1986 is required <\/p>\n<p>    to be followed. In the context of the said issue, it would be relevant to <\/p>\n<p>    refer to Section 13 of the said Act of 1986 which is reproduced herein <\/p>\n<p>    under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                 &#8220;13. (1)   The   State   Government   shall,   by<br \/>\n                 notification in the Official Gazette and also by <\/p>\n<p>                 publication of such notification in the manner<br \/>\n                 provided   in   sub-section   (2)   of   section   11,<br \/>\n                 declare&#8212;-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                       (a) the  extent   of   area  which   shall<br \/>\n                 constitute the  area of affected zone  under the<br \/>\n                 project ;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  32<\/span><\/p>\n<p>           (b) if   the   project   is   an   irrigation<br \/>\n     project,   the  extent   of   area  which   shall <\/p>\n<p>     constitute the area of benefited zone under the<br \/>\n     project;\n<\/p>\n<p>             (c) which   of   the   slabs   mentioned   in<br \/>\n     Part   II   of   the   Schedule   shall   apply   to   such<br \/>\n     project for the purposes of acquisition of land <\/p>\n<p>     in the benefited zone.\n<\/p>\n<p>            (2) Before   publishing   a   notification<br \/>\n     under sub-section (1), the Collector shall give <\/p>\n<p>     a   public   notice   inviting   objections   or<br \/>\n     suggestions   in   respect   of   the   lands   falling <\/p>\n<p>     under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1),<br \/>\n     by publishing in the manner specified in sub-\n<\/p>\n<p>     section   (2)   of   section   11   and   also   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     Official Gazette and in one daily newspaper in<br \/>\n     the   Marathi   language   circulating   in   the   local<br \/>\n     area   comprising   such   villages   and   areas   of<br \/>\n     affected   and   benefited   zone.   Any   person <\/p>\n<p>     interested in the land in such areas may make,<br \/>\n     objections   or   suggestions,   if   any,   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     Collector   within   30   days   from   the   date   on<br \/>\n     which such public notice is published by beat<br \/>\n     of  drums in the village  or area concerned or <\/p>\n<p>     the   date   on   which   it   is   published   in   the<br \/>\n     newspaper as aforesaid, whichever is later; and<br \/>\n     the   Collector   shall,   with   all   reasonable<br \/>\n     despatch,   forward   any   objections   or<br \/>\n     suggestions so made together with his report <\/p>\n<p>     in respect thereof to the State Government and<br \/>\n     on   considering   the   report   and   the   objections<br \/>\n     and suggestions, if any, the State Government<br \/>\n     may pass such order as it deems fit.\n<\/p>\n<p>            (3) If at any time during the course of<br \/>\n     execution of a project, the project authority is<br \/>\n     satisfied   that   any  change   in   the   areas <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              33<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                 mentioned   in   the   notification   under   sub-\n<\/p>\n<p>                 section (1) is necessary, it shall communicate<br \/>\n                 such   change   with   reasons  and   the   plans  and <\/p>\n<p>                 particulars relating to the change to the State<br \/>\n                 Government through the Collector.\n<\/p>\n<p>                         (4) One receipt of the communication<br \/>\n                 under   sub-section(3)   and   the   report   of   the<br \/>\n                 Collector,   if   any,   the   State   Government   may <\/p>\n<p>                 after   considering   the   reasons   given   by   the<br \/>\n                 project authority and in the report, if any, of<br \/>\n                 the Collector  and making such enquiry, if any,<br \/>\n                 as   it   thinks   fit,   make   such   change   in   the <\/p>\n<p>                 manner laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2)&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                               ig                    (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>                  As can be seen, the notification issued under section 13(1) <\/p>\n<p>    declares the area of the affected zone under the project, the extent of <\/p>\n<p>    area  which  would constitute   the benefited zone and which of the <\/p>\n<p>    slabs mentioned in Part II of the Schedule shall apply to such project <\/p>\n<p>    for the purposes of acquisition of land in the benefited zone.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  Sub-section   (2)   of   Section   13     postulates   that   before <\/p>\n<p>    publishing   a   notification   under   sub-section   (1),   the   Collector   shall <\/p>\n<p>    give a public notice inviting objections or suggestions in respect of the <\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;lands   falling   under   clauses   (a)   and   (b)   of   sub-section   (1)&#8221;,   by <\/p>\n<p>    publishing   the   same   in   the   manner   specified   in   sub-section   (2)   of <\/p>\n<p>    Section   11     and   also   in   the   Official   Gazette   and   in   one   daily <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            34<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    newspaper   in   the   Marathi   language   circulating   in   the   local   area <\/p>\n<p>    comprising  such   villages  and  areas  of  affected  and  benefited  zone.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The said objections and suggestions, received by the Collector, shall <\/p>\n<p>    be forwarded by him to the State Government with his report and, the <\/p>\n<p>    State Government is obliged to pass such orders on such objections <\/p>\n<p>    and suggestions as it deems fit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                 Sub-section (3) of Section 13 provides that if during the <\/p>\n<p>    course of execution of project, the project authority is satisfied that <\/p>\n<p>    any change in the &#8220;areas&#8221; mentioned in the notification under sub-\n<\/p>\n<p>    section (1) is ascribable to clauses (a) and (b) thereof, is necessary, it <\/p>\n<p>    shall   communicate   such   change   with   reasons   and   the   plans   and <\/p>\n<p>    particulars relating to the change to the State Government through <\/p>\n<p>    the Collector.\n<\/p>\n<p>                 Sub-section (4) of Section 13 provides that on receipt of <\/p>\n<p>    the   communication   under   sub-section   (3)   and   the   report   of   the <\/p>\n<p>    Collector,   the   State   Government   may   after   considering   the   reasons <\/p>\n<p>    given by the project authority as also the reasons contained   in the <\/p>\n<p>    report of the Collector and, after making such enquiry, if any, as it <\/p>\n<p>    thinks fit, make such change obviously referable to areas mentioned <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                         ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                35<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) in the manner laid <\/p>\n<p>    down in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13.\n<\/p>\n<p>    11            What can, therefore be seen from a reading of the said <\/p>\n<p>    Section  13  is  that  the  objections  and suggestions are  to be   invited <\/p>\n<p>    only in respect of &#8220;areas&#8221; mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) i.e. the <\/p>\n<p>    extent of area coming in the affected zone and the extent of the area <\/p>\n<p>    coming   in   the   benefited   zone.     A   reference   to   clause   (c)   is <\/p>\n<p>    conspicuously absent for obvious reasons.  As the slab  which would <\/p>\n<p>    be applicable would be contingent upon the extent of the area of the <\/p>\n<p>    affected zone and the extent of the area of the benefited zone.  They <\/p>\n<p>    are, according to us, the determining factors on the basis of which the <\/p>\n<p>    slab is fixed by the authorities by choosing one of the slabs mentioned <\/p>\n<p>    in   the   Schedule.     A   perusal   of   the   Part   II   of   the   Schedule   would <\/p>\n<p>    disclose   the   various   slabs   which   could   be   applied   to   a   particular <\/p>\n<p>    project considering the lands in the affected zone and the benefited <\/p>\n<p>    zone. A perusal of the slabs especially slab-I of Part II of the schedule <\/p>\n<p>    which is now made applicable discloses the maximum area that can <\/p>\n<p>    be acquired from a person holding the land above the slab mentioned <\/p>\n<p>    viz. in the instant case 1 hectare 61 ares.  The slabs in that sense are <\/p>\n<p>    elaborate   and   inter-alia   stipulate   the   extent   of   land   that   can   be <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               36<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    acquired   from   the   landholders   to   which   a   particular   slab   is   made <\/p>\n<p>    applicable.   The   said   slabs   forming   part   of   the   Act   of   1986   are <\/p>\n<p>    therefore   statutory   in   nature   and   once   a   particular   slab   is   made <\/p>\n<p>    applicable the State Government is free to acquire the lands above the <\/p>\n<p>    said slab restricted to the maximum that can be acquired   from the <\/p>\n<p>    land holder having a particular holding. Since the requirement of the <\/p>\n<p>    land   depends   upon   the   extent   of  the   area   covered   by   the   affected <\/p>\n<p>    zone and the benefited zone, the opportunity, if any, would, therefore, <\/p>\n<p>    have to be given if there is a change in the area of the affected or <\/p>\n<p>    benefited   zone   and,   therefore,   the   legislature   has   consciously <\/p>\n<p>    excluded   clause   (c)   from   section   13(2)   in   the   matter   of   inviting <\/p>\n<p>    objections   and   suggestions.       The   application   of   a   particular   slab <\/p>\n<p>    mentioned   in   the   Schedule   is   akin   to   a   legislative   action   and <\/p>\n<p>    therefore, for a change in the slab, in our view, no notice is required <\/p>\n<p>    to be issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>    12            It   is   true,   as   contended   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n<p>    Petitioners, that vide clauses (a) and (b) of Section 13(1) of the Act of <\/p>\n<p>    1986,   the   lands   in   the   affected   and   benefited   zone   are   identified, <\/p>\n<p>    however, once the extent of the lands are identified which come in the <\/p>\n<p>    affected and benefited zone, fixing of the slab is only a sequitur to <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               37<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    such identification or a ministerial act &#8211; as the lands in the benefited <\/p>\n<p>    zone are to be acquired and allotted to the project affected persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Therefore, the Petitioners&#8217; contention that notices ought to have been <\/p>\n<p>    given even in respect of the change in the slab cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>    13            The contention of the Petitioners that the words appearing <\/p>\n<p>    in section   13(4) viz such change in the manner laid down in sub-\n<\/p>\n<p>    sections (1) and (2) make it abundantly clear that even for a change <\/p>\n<p>    in   parameters relating to slabs mentioned in the notification under <\/p>\n<p>    Section   13(1),   the   procedure   contemplated   in   sub-section   (2)   of <\/p>\n<p>    section   13   has   to   be   followed,   is,   in   our   view,   misconceived.     As <\/p>\n<p>    mentioned herein above, sub-section (2) contemplates that only when <\/p>\n<p>    there is a change in the extent of the &#8220;areas&#8221; mentioned in clauses (a) <\/p>\n<p>    and (b)   of section 13(1), that a notice would have to be published <\/p>\n<p>    under section 13(2) since clauses (a) and (b) are the vital parameters <\/p>\n<p>    determining   the   area   to   which   the   proposed   acquisition   would   be <\/p>\n<p>    applicable.     The   legislature   has,   therefore   consciously   excluded <\/p>\n<p>    clause (c) from the requirements of giving notice under section 13(2), <\/p>\n<p>    even if there is  a change in the said parameter. As mentioned herein <\/p>\n<p>    above, clauses (a) and (b) are really the determinative factors on the <\/p>\n<p>    basis of   which the slab is to be applied.   It is on the basis of the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              38<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    extent of the areas covered by clauses (a) and (b) of section 13(1) <\/p>\n<p>    that one of the slabs mentioned in the schedule is chosen by the State <\/p>\n<p>    Government.     Hence   even   if  there   is  a  change   in  the   slab   without <\/p>\n<p>    there   being   any   change   in   the   parameter   of   the   land   covered   by <\/p>\n<p>    clauses   (a)   and  (b),   there   is   no  requirement   of   issuing  notice   and <\/p>\n<p>    inviting objections and suggestions as the benefited zone remains the <\/p>\n<p>    same and the lands have to be acquired from the said benefited zone.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">    14<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                  As can be seen in the instant case, since the lands which <\/p>\n<p>    were acquired from the persons pursuant to the earlier slab fixed viz 3 <\/p>\n<p>    hectares     23   ares   were   falling   short   of   the   requirement   for <\/p>\n<p>    rehabilitating  the   project   affected  persons  of  the  Chikotara  project, <\/p>\n<p>    that   the   authorities   moved   the   State   Government   for   lowering   the <\/p>\n<p>    slab to 1 hectare 61 ares which proposal the State Government has <\/p>\n<p>    sanctioned and the notification under section 13(1) of the Act of 1986 <\/p>\n<p>    dated  26th  July 1995  came  to  be  issued.   Therefore,  in  the instant <\/p>\n<p>    case, what has happened is that, there is no change in the benefited <\/p>\n<p>    zone,   however,   the   slab   has   been   lowered   so   that   sufficient   land <\/p>\n<p>    becomes   available   for   rehabilitating   the   project   affected  persons  of <\/p>\n<p>    the said Chikotara project.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               39<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    15            In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the <\/p>\n<p>    Petitioners that if it is construed that section 13(3) and section 13(4) <\/p>\n<p>    do   not   apply   to   modification   made   in   respect   of   change   of   slab <\/p>\n<p>    contemplated by section 13(1)(c), then it would have to be held that <\/p>\n<p>    since the legislature has expressly permitted change in the parameters <\/p>\n<p>    of the areas mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of section 13(1) only, <\/p>\n<p>    and  since   no  such  latitude   is  available   in  respect   of  the   change  in <\/p>\n<p>    parameter   mentioned  in   clause   (c)   of  section   13(1),   therefore,   the <\/p>\n<p>    intention   of   the   legislature   is   clear   namely,   that   there   can   be   no <\/p>\n<p>    change at all  in respect of the slab mentioned in clause (c).  The said <\/p>\n<p>    submission, in our view, cannot be countenanced in the teeth of the <\/p>\n<p>    purport and intent of the Act of 1986 whose object primarily is of <\/p>\n<p>    rehabilitation of the project affected persons in fact the raison d&#8217;etre <\/p>\n<p>    of the said Act   is the rehabilitation of such persons.   As recorded <\/p>\n<p>    herein above, the determinative factors are   clauses (a) and (b) of <\/p>\n<p>    section 13(1) of the Act of 1986 on whose basis the State Government <\/p>\n<p>    applies   a   particular   slab.   The   intention   being   that   adequate   lands <\/p>\n<p>    become   available   for   rehabilitation   of   the   project   affected   persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>    May be in a given case, the parameters mentioned in clauses (a) and <\/p>\n<p>    (b) do not change, but if the slab applied earlier does not serve the <\/p>\n<p>    purpose, then in that event a change in the slab may be warranted. If <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               40<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    section 13 (2) is to be construed in the manner as contended by the <\/p>\n<p>    Petitioners, it would militate against the intent and purport of the said <\/p>\n<p>    Act   and,   would   therefore   make   the   provisions   of   the   Act   of   1986 <\/p>\n<p>    nugatory.   We, therefore do not find merit in the aforesaid contention <\/p>\n<p>    of the Petitioners and accordingly reject it.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  It was also faintly sought to be canvassed by the learned <\/p>\n<p>    counsel   for   the   Petitioners,   that   the   project   in   question   cannot   be <\/p>\n<p>    called   an   irrigation   project   but   a   percolation   project   or   that   the <\/p>\n<p>    benefited zone cannot be called as such, if the benefit of distribution <\/p>\n<p>    of water is in future.  Though the Petitioners have questioned in the <\/p>\n<p>    Petition the project being an irrigation project, the second ground that <\/p>\n<p>    the benefited zone cannot be called as such has not been taken in the <\/p>\n<p>    Petition.   Apart from it, both the said grounds were not canvassed <\/p>\n<p>    with any deal of conviction. Be that as it may, the said grounds in our <\/p>\n<p>    view   are   only   stated   to   be   rejected   considering   the   nature   of   the <\/p>\n<p>    project and the benefit that is likely to accrue in terms of providing <\/p>\n<p>    irrigation to large tracts of land.\n<\/p>\n<p>    16            Another aspect to be considered is that though the above <\/p>\n<p>    petitions were admitted, the stay operating in favour of the Petitioners <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            41<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    was only in respect of taking over possession of the lands in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>    There   was   no   stay   to   the   land   acquisition   proceedings   being <\/p>\n<p>    completed.  As mentioned herein above, the Special Land Acquisition <\/p>\n<p>    Officer Dr.Swati Deshmukh has filed an affidavit in which it has been <\/p>\n<p>    stated that final award in respect of the land in question has been <\/p>\n<p>    passed   on   21st  January   2004.     Though   the   Petitioners   have <\/p>\n<p>    approached this Court before the final award being passed, one would <\/p>\n<p>    have to bear in mind that the Petitioners have approached this Court <\/p>\n<p>    after the declaration under Section 6 was issued and not immediately <\/p>\n<p>    after the notification under Section 13(1) dated 26th July 1995 under <\/p>\n<p>    the Act of 1986 was issued.  In so far as the scheme for acquisition of <\/p>\n<p>    land for the projected affected person is concerned, the notification <\/p>\n<p>    under section 13(1) is the defining notification if one can   use the <\/p>\n<p>    said phraseology,   inasmuch as it is by the said notification the land <\/p>\n<p>    covered   by   the   affected   zone,   the   benefited   zone   and   the   slab <\/p>\n<p>    applicable are made final. Thereafter the land is acquired by taking <\/p>\n<p>    recourse to  the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, therefore, in so far <\/p>\n<p>    as   the   present   Petitioners   are   concerned,   the   notification   under <\/p>\n<p>    Section 13(1) dated 26th  July 1995 in so far as it changes the slab <\/p>\n<p>    from 3 hectares 23 ares to 1 hectare 61 ares was the vital notification <\/p>\n<p>    and the Petitioners ought to have challenged the said notification with <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                         ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               42<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    reasonable despatch and ought not to have waited till the Section 6 <\/p>\n<p>    declaration under the L.A. Act was issued.  In our view, therefore, the <\/p>\n<p>    said   fact   would   also   be   relevant   in   the   context   of   considering   the <\/p>\n<p>    challenge raised by the Petitioners in the instant petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>    17            A useful reference could be made to the Judgment of the <\/p>\n<p>    Apex   Court   reported   in  A.I.R.   2000   S.C.   671  in   the   matter   of <\/p>\n<p>    Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another vs. Shah Hyder Baig <\/p>\n<p>    and others in which case, the Apex Court turned down the challenge <\/p>\n<p>    to the acquisition proceedings in view of the fact that the final award <\/p>\n<p>    had   been   passed   and   no   land   acquisition   proceedings   could   be <\/p>\n<p>    challenged after the final award had been declared.  However, though <\/p>\n<p>    the   above   Petitions   have   been   filed   before   the   declaration   of   final <\/p>\n<p>    award,  since the challenge to the notification under Section 13(1) is <\/p>\n<p>    long after it has been issued, in our view, considering the scheme of <\/p>\n<p>    acquisition,   the   same   analogy,   as   in   the   judgment   (supra),     would <\/p>\n<p>    have to be applied and hence the challenge of the Petitioners to the <\/p>\n<p>    acquisition of land in question would have to be negatived on the said <\/p>\n<p>    ground also.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              43<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    18            In so far the Judgment of the Apex Court (Supra) and the <\/p>\n<p>    Judgments of the Division Bench reported in 2004(3) Bom.C.R. 328 <\/p>\n<p>    and CDJ 2004 BHC 337 (Supra), for the view we have taken namely <\/p>\n<p>    that there is no requirement of issuing a notification under Section <\/p>\n<p>    13(2) if there is a change in the slab, in our view, the said judgments <\/p>\n<p>    have no application.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  Indeed, in so far as the Judgment of the Division Bench <\/p>\n<p>    reported   in   CDJ   2004   BHC   337   is   concerned,   though   the   said <\/p>\n<p>    judgment is under the Act of 1986 and in the said case also the slab <\/p>\n<p>    was reduced, the fact situation in the said case was totally different <\/p>\n<p>    inasmuch   the   Division   Bench   was   required   to   consider   whether   a <\/p>\n<p>    notification  under Section  13(2) was  required   to  be  issued in  the <\/p>\n<p>    context   of   the   fact   that   the   declaration   under   Section   11   of   the <\/p>\n<p>    Resettlement Act, 1976, which was in force at the relevant time, was <\/p>\n<p>    already issued. Hence in our view, the said judgment also does not <\/p>\n<p>    support the Petitioners case in any manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  In fact as can be seen from the said judgment, the Division <\/p>\n<p>    Bench has observed that to what extent the land is required or not is <\/p>\n<p>    best left to the legislature. This was in the context of the fact that the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              44<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    slab was reduced by the authorities to 2 H. 42 Rs from the earlier slab <\/p>\n<p>    of 8 H.  Therefore, the said judgment in fact lends support to the view <\/p>\n<p>    that we have taken in the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>    19            For all the aforesaid reasons,  we do not find any merit in <\/p>\n<p>    the   above   Petitions   which   are   accordingly   dismissed   and   Rule <\/p>\n<p>    discharged in all the Petitions with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>    20            On pronouncement of the Judgment today i.e. 07th  June <\/p>\n<p>    2010,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   Petitioners   applies   for   time   to <\/p>\n<p>    approach the Apex Court.  However, the learned AGP opposes the said <\/p>\n<p>    prayer.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, <\/p>\n<p>    the operation of this order is stayed for a period of eight weeks from <\/p>\n<p>    today.\n<\/p>\n<pre>           Sd\/-                                                     sd\/-\n\n    (R.M.SAVANT, J.)                                      (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)\n\n\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:58:57 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 2010 Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, R. M. Savant 1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1143 OF 2002 Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale ] Adult, Occupation-Agriculture ] Alabad, Tal Kagal, District Kolhapur ]&#8230; Petitioner. [&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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-164365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-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>Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 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\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-14T18:14:47+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=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-14T18:14:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5654,\"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\\\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-14T18:14:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 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\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-14T18:14:47+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":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-14T18:14:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010"},"wordCount":5654,"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\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010","name":"Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-14T18:14:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shripati-hari-barkale-vs-additional-government-pleader-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri. Shripati Hari Barkale vs Additional Government Pleader on 7 June, 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:\/\/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\/164365","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=164365"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164365\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}