{"id":167703,"date":"2009-03-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-17T07:39:40","modified_gmt":"2019-01-17T02:09:40","slug":"whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: K. K. Tated<\/div>\n
                                 (1)\n\n\n\n\n            FIRST APPEAL NO.334 OF 1994\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                                           \n                  Date of decision:    6TH MARCH, 2009\n\n    For approval and signature.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED\n\n\n    1.    Whether Reporters of Local Papers                }     Yes\n          may be allowed to see the Judgment?              }\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n    2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not           }     Yes\/No\n\n    3.\n                      \n          Whether Their Lordships wish to see\n          the fair copy of the Judgment?\n                                                           }\n                                                           }\n                                                                 No\n                     \n    4.    Whether this case involves a substantial         }\n          question of law as to the interpretation         }     No\n          of the Constitution of India, 1950 or            }\n          any Order made thereunder?                       }\n\n    5.    Whether it is to be circulated to the            }     No\n      \n\n\n          Civil Judges?                                    }\n   \n\n\n\n    6.    Whether the case involves an important           }\n          question of law and whether a copy of            }     No\n          the Judgment should be sent to Mumbai,           }\n          Nagpur and Panaji offices?                       }\n\n\n\n\n\n         [A.S. Bhagwat)\n         Personal Assistant to\n         the Honourable Judge.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:23:47 :::\n                                1\n\n\n\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n         FIRST APPEAL NO.334 OF 1994\n                 IN\n         LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.60 OF 1992\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    Bilkis Bano w\/o Abdul Razzak,\n    Afgan, Age-33 years,\n    Occu:Household,\n    Through her Power of Attorney\n    Mohd. Abdul Razzak,\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n    Age-41 years, Occu:Business,\n    R\/o-Nai Masjid Mohalla,\n    Nanded.\n                      ig        .... APPELLANT.\n\n            VERSUS\n                    \n    1) State of Maharashtra,\n       Through District Collector,\n       Nanded.\n\n    2) The Special Land Acquisition\n      \n\n\n       Officer, B. & C. Nanded.\n                                ....     RESPONDENTS.\n   \n\n\n\n                         ...\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mr.K.G. Khader Advocate for the Appellant.\n     Mr.S.P. Dound, A.G.P. for the Respondents.\n                       ...\n\n\n            CORAM:     K.K. TATED, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            DATE :    6TH MARCH, 2009.\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:23:47 :::<\/span>\n                                         2<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n    1.        Heard        Mr.      Khader,          learned           counsel\n\n    appearing       on     behalf     of the        Appellant        and      Mr.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    Dound,     learned A.G.P.          appearing on behalf of the\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    Respondents.\n\n\n\n    2.        Present       Appeal    has been preferred by                   the\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    Appellant\/        original claimant against the Judgment\n\n<\/pre>\n
    and award dated 19th October, 1993 passed by Civil<\/p>\n
    Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in L.A.R.                         No.60 of<\/p>\n
    1992.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        Mr.        Khader, learned counsel for Appellant<\/p>\n
    submitted the undisputed facts as under:\n<\/p>\n
    .         The     Special Land Acquisition Officer                      (for<\/p>\n
    short      “S.L.A.O.”)          issued         Notification           under<\/p>\n
    Section     4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated                         20th<\/p>\n
    February,       1987 for acquiring Appellants\/ original<\/p>\n
    claimants       land     from Survey No.             99\/3 of       village<\/p>\n
    Sonkhed, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded admeasuring 81 Rs<\/p>\n
    for construction of Vishnupuri Project at Kandhar,<\/p>\n
    Dist-Nanded.           Thereafter        the      S.L.A.O.           issued<\/p>\n
    Notification           under      Section        6    of     the        Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition       Act        dated 15th March,          1990.         After<\/p>\n
    following       due     process     of         law,    the       S.L.A.O.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
    declared        award dated 12th July, 1991 and                       awarded<\/p>\n
    compensation           in    respect of acquired land at                     the<\/p>\n
    rate of Rs.13,000\/- per Acre.                  Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
    the     Appellant submitted that the Respondents took<\/p>\n
    possession        of        the acquired land on             7th      August,<\/p>\n
    1988.     The notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition        Act       served on the Appellant on                    15th<\/p>\n
    July,     1991 and thereafter the Appellant                         accepted<\/p>\n
    the     payment        under     protest on 22nd             July,         1991.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    Being     aggrieved          by the said award passed by                     the\n\n    S.L.A.O.,         the\n                             ig  Appellant\/            original         claimant\n\n    preferred        Reference under Section 18 of the                         Land\n                           \n    Acquisition        Act dated 14th August, 1991.                       In     the\n\n    said     Reference the Appellant claimed compensation\n\n    in     respect     of        acquired       land     at    the      rate       of\n      \n\n\n    Rs.50,000\/-        per Acre.       The said Reference decided\n   \n\n\n\n    by     the Reference Court on 19th October, 1993                             and\n\n    awarded     compensation in respect of acquired                            land\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    at the rate of Rs.21,000\/- per Acre.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        Mr.      Khader,        learned           counsel         for      the<\/p>\n
    Appellant submitted that the Reference Court erred<\/p>\n
    in     coming to the conclusion that the Appellant is<\/p>\n
    not     entitled        to compensation in respect                    of     the<\/p>\n
    acquired land at the rate of Rs.50,000\/- per Acre.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
    He     further       submitted            that the        Reference          Court<\/p>\n
    failed       to     consider the fertility of the land                           at<\/p>\n
    the     time       of     fixing market value in                  respect        of<\/p>\n
    acquired          land.         Learned         counsel     for       Appellant<\/p>\n
    submitted          that the Reference Court failed to take<\/p>\n
    into     consideration               the valuation of the land                   of<\/p>\n
    the     Appellant             which     was      fixed     by     the     Deputy<\/p>\n
    Collector,          Degloor           at Rs.4 Lakh at the              time      of<\/p>\n
    issuing        solvency            certificate.          Learned        counsel<\/p>\n
    submitted          that the Reference Court ought to                         have<\/p>\n
    considered<\/p>\n
                        the solvency certificate issued by the<\/p>\n
    Deputy Collector, Degloor showing the market value<\/p>\n
    of     the     acquired land at Rs.4 Lakh.                      In     view      of<\/p>\n
    these        facts and on other grounds, learned counsel<\/p>\n
    for     Appellant submitted that the Appeal preferred<\/p>\n
    by      the        Appellant           to     be    allowed           and      the<\/p>\n
    compensation             in     respect of acquired land                  to     be<\/p>\n
    determined at the rate of Rs.50,000\/- per Acre.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        On       the        other     hand, Mr.          Dound,       learned<\/p>\n
    A.G.P.         appearing            on behalf of          the     Respondents<\/p>\n
    submitted          that the Reference Court considered the<\/p>\n
    market         value          of    the       acquired      land        as     per<\/p>\n
    prevailing          rate        and     fixed      it at        the     rate     of<\/p>\n
    Rs.21,000\/-          per Acre.            Learned A.G.P.              submitted<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
    that     the claimant produced only one sale deed                                at<\/p>\n
    Exhibit       14 dated 5th December, 1988 in respect of<\/p>\n
    Bagayat       land         of 20 Rs sold for Rs.17,000\/-,                      the<\/p>\n
    rate     of        which     comes to        Rs.34,000\/-          per        Acre.\n<\/p>\n
    Except     this        sale       deed    the       Appellant         has      not<\/p>\n
    produced       any         other cogent evidence to show                     that<\/p>\n
    the Appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation<\/p>\n
    in     respect       of      acquired        land     at     the      rate       of<\/p>\n
    Rs.50,000\/-          per     Acre.       Learned      A.G.P.            further<\/p>\n
    submitted          that the solvency certificate issued by<\/p>\n
    the<\/p>\n
            Deputy Collector showing the market value                                of<\/p>\n
    the     acquired land at the rate of Rs.4 Lakh cannot<\/p>\n
    be     considered          for    fixing market            value        of     the<\/p>\n
    acquired land in the present case.                         Learned A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
    submitted that the said document was not proved by<\/p>\n
    the     Appellant          and    therefore the            same       was      not<\/p>\n
    accepted       by      the       Reference          Court.        The         said<\/p>\n
    document       was         taken on record for             identification<\/p>\n
    only.         In     this        circumstances,            learned        A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
    submitted          that      there is no merit in the                   present<\/p>\n
    Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed with<\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
    6.        Learned          counsel Mr.        Khader, appearing                  on<\/p>\n
    behalf     of the Appellant pointed out that                            husband<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
    of     the Appellant\/ original claimant entered                           into<\/p>\n
    Witness        Box     at     Exhibit 18 and stated              that       the<\/p>\n
    acquired        land is situated on High Way.                    The      land<\/p>\n
    under     acquisition is surrounded by Gram Panchayat<\/p>\n
    Office,        School,        Junior     College,       Bank,        society<\/p>\n
    office        and     Government        Offices.       Thus      the      land<\/p>\n
    under     acquisition is surrounded by the                       developed<\/p>\n
    area.     For fertilization facilities, there is Soil<\/p>\n
    Conservation           Office.         Village Loha is           six      k.m.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    away     from the acquired land.                He further           pointed\n\n    out     that\n                            \n                        Exhibit     14 sale deed produced                by     the\n\n    Appellant.            The sale deed shows the market                    value\n                           \n    as      on     5th     December,        1988      at     the     rate         of\n\n    Rs.34,000\/-           per     Acre.     Learned     counsel          further\n\n    pointed        out     the     evidence of        Vithal       Ramrao         at\n      \n\n\n    Exhibit        35,     who     was S.L.A.O.        at     the      time       of\n   \n\n\n\n    passing        the award in the present case.                    The      said\n\n    witness        was     examined        by the     State.         In       cross\n\n\n\n\n\n    examination           this witness specifically stated that\n\n    Survey        No.     28\/2 has been sold for              consideration\n\n    of     Rs.1     Lakh        per Hector.     Similarly          land       from\n\n    Survey        No.      230\/C     sold       for    consideration              of\n\n\n\n\n\n    Rs.68,800\/-           per     Hector by sale deed             dated       22nd\n\n    September,           1988.     On the basis of this              admission\n\n    by      S.L.A.O.,           learned      counsel        for      Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:23:47 :::<\/span>\n                                            7<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n    submitted           that      Appellant            is      entitled            to\n\n    compensation         in respect of acquired land at least\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n    at     the rate of Rs.50,000\/- per Acre.                       He     further\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    submitted       that        the     Reference      Court        considered\n\n    three sale instances i.e.                  dated 12th March, 1986,\n\n    5th     May,    1987 and 3rd March, 1987.                      Those        sale\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    instances           were     not     produced        either          by      the\n\n    Appellant       and\/or        by     the Respondent            before        the\n\n    Reference           Court.         Those     sale        instances          were\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    referred       by the S.L.A.O.             in his award dated 12th\n\n    July,     1991.\n                           \n                           Learned counsel for               the        Appellant\n\n    submitted       that        those     sale      instances            can       be\n                          \n<\/pre>\n
    considered for fixing market value though the same<\/p>\n
    were     not produced before the Court.                      He submitted<\/p>\n
    that     the S.L.A.O.             in his evidence admitted those<\/p>\n
    sale     instances          which were relied by him                  at     the<\/p>\n
    time     of passing the award dated 12th July,                            1991.\n<\/p>\n
    In     view    of these facts, the learned counsel                           for<\/p>\n
    the     Appellant          submitted       that the        Appellant           is<\/p>\n
    entitled       to     compensation in respect of                    acquired<\/p>\n
    land     at    the rate of Rs.40,000\/- per Acre                         though<\/p>\n
    the     Appellant claimed compensation at the rate of<\/p>\n
    Rs.50,000\/-         per      Acre     in     the        Reference          under<\/p>\n
    Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
    7.        Mr.           Dound,     learned      A.G.P.         for      the<\/p>\n
    Respondents             submitted that sale deeds dated                12th<\/p>\n
    March,       1986,        5th May, 1987 and 3rd           March,       1987<\/p>\n
    cannot       be considered for fixing the market                     value<\/p>\n
    of    the        acquired        land   because     same        were    not<\/p>\n
    produced          before the Reference Court.             He     further<\/p>\n
    submitted that the contents of the award passed by<\/p>\n
    the     S.L.A.O.          cannot be considered for fixing the<\/p>\n
    market value of the acquired land unless and until<\/p>\n
    material relied by the S.L.A.O.                  for declaring the<\/p>\n
    award       is<\/p>\n
                       produced before the Court.             He     further<\/p>\n
    submitted          that sale deed at Exhibit 14 dated                   5th<\/p>\n
    December, 1988 is in respect of Bagayat land.                           The<\/p>\n
    land involved in Exhibit 14 is only 20 Rs of land,<\/p>\n
    therefore, the said sale deed cannot be considered<\/p>\n
    for     fixing the market value of the acquired land.\n<\/p>\n
    On    the basis of these submissions, learned A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
    submits          that     there     is no merit in        the     present<\/p>\n
    Appeal and the same to be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
    8.        The          first   contention    raised       by     learned<\/p>\n
    counsel          for     the Appellant that three sale               deeds<\/p>\n
    dated       12th        March,     1986, 5th May, 1987          and     3rd<\/p>\n
    March,       1987        can     be considered     for     fixing       the<\/p>\n
    market       value        of     the acquired     land,     cannot        be<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
    accepted        because       it    is admitted        position         that<\/p>\n
    neither the purchaser nor the seller of those sale<\/p>\n
    deeds     are examined as witnesses nor the certified<\/p>\n
    copies of those sale deeds are produced on record.\n<\/p>\n
    Those     sale deeds are referred by the S.L.A.O.                           in<\/p>\n
    his     award.         The    Apex    Court in        the    matter         of<\/p>\n
    Chimanlal            Hargovinddas             vs.      Special          Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition           Officer, Poona and<\/a> another,                reported<\/p>\n
    in     AIR    1988 Supreme Court, 1652, held                   that       the<\/p>\n
    material        relied       upon    by       the   Land    Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Officer<\/p>\n
                  cannot be relied upon by the Court unless<\/p>\n
    the     same is produced and proved before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    In     view of these facts, the contention raised                           by<\/p>\n
    the Appellant in that behalf, cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
    9.        The        solvency      certificate       issued        by     the<\/p>\n
    Deputy       Collector        in respect of valuation of                  the<\/p>\n
    land     produced        by     the Appellant also           cannot         be<\/p>\n
    considered for fixing the market value because the<\/p>\n
    said certificate is not proved and the same is not<\/p>\n
    accepted        by     the Reference Court.           The      Reference<\/p>\n
    Court     has kept the said certificate on record and<\/p>\n
    market it for identification only.\n<\/p>\n
    10.       For        the purpose of considering the                  market<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
    value     of the acquired land, Exhibit 14 i.e.                               sale<\/p>\n
    deed     dated 5th December, 1988 can be                          considered.\n<\/p>\n
    In     the said sale deed the land of 20 Rs was                                   sold<\/p>\n
    for     Rs.17,000\/- from the village Sonkhed                             itself.\n<\/p>\n
    The     acquired          land      also          situated       at      village<\/p>\n
    Sonkhed.            The Appellant’s witness Abdul Afgan                            at<\/p>\n
    Exhibit        18     specifically stated in                    his     evidence<\/p>\n
    that the land involved in Exhibit 14 sale deed was<\/p>\n
    adjacent        to        the land of the Appellant which                         was<\/p>\n
    sold     for        consideration of Rs.34,000\/- per                         Acre.\n<\/p>\n
    If<\/p>\n
           the sale deed of adjacent land is available on<\/p>\n
    record,        the same can be considered for fixing the<\/p>\n
    market         value           of      the         acquired           land.          A<\/p>\n
    determination             of     the      market value of              the        land<\/p>\n
    acquired        in        terms      of    provisions           of     the        Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition           Act      depends        upon     large          number        of<\/p>\n
    factors, the first being the nature and quality of<\/p>\n
    the     land        i.e.         whether          agricultural          land        or<\/p>\n
    industrial land.               Apart from nature and quality of<\/p>\n
    land,     in        the     event the agricultural                    lands        are<\/p>\n
    acquired, the other factors relevant therefore are<\/p>\n
    also     required           to      be considered          namely,           as     to<\/p>\n
    whether        they        are      irrigated        or    non        irrigated,<\/p>\n
    extent     of        facilities available                 for     irrigation,<\/p>\n
    location        of land, closeness thereof from any road<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
    or high way.         In the present case, the witness for<\/p>\n
    the    Appellant specifically stated in his evidence<\/p>\n
    that    acquired          land is situated on high              way     and<\/p>\n
    surrounding       to the lands under acquisition                    there<\/p>\n
    is     Gram Panchayat Office, school, junior college,<\/p>\n
    hospital,      banks       etc.     The said evidence             is    not<\/p>\n
    seriously      challenged in the cross examination                        by<\/p>\n
    the    Respondents.         Therefore, considering the sale<\/p>\n
    deed      at    Exhibit       14,    I     am   holding      that       the<\/p>\n
    Appellant\/        original         claimant     is    entitled            to<\/p>\n
    compensation         in
\n                           ig  respect of acquired land at                  the<\/p>\n
    rate    of     Rs.34,000\/- per Acre.            Needless          to    say<\/p>\n
    that    Appellant is entitled to additional benefits<\/p>\n
    as      per    the    amended        provisions       of     the       Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition          Act      on         enhanced     compensation.<\/p>\n
\n      \n\n\n    Therefore,       First Appeal is required to be                    partly\n   \n\n\n\n    allowed.       Hence the Order:\n\n\n\n\n\n                               O R D E R\n\n\n\n    (i)      First       Appeal    No.       334 of 1994       is      partly\n\n    allowed.\n\n\n\n\n\n    (ii)     The     Judgment      and       award passed        by     Civil\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Judge, Senior Division, Nanded dated 19th October,<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
    2003     in L.A.R.        No.60 of 1992 is modified to                the<\/p>\n
    extent     that Appellant is entitled to compensation<\/p>\n
    in     respect     of     acquired    land   at     the      rate       of<\/p>\n
    Rs.34,000\/- per Acre.\n<\/p>\n
    (iii)    The      Appellant       is entitled     to     additional<\/p>\n
    benefits as per the amended provisions of the Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation.\n<\/p>\n
    (iv)     Reference        Court     is directed to         calculate<\/p>\n
    the<\/p>\n
            amount due and payable to the Appellant after<\/p>\n
    giving     notice       to    both the    sides,       within       four<\/p>\n
    months     from     the      date    of receipt     of     Writ       and<\/p>\n
    certified copy of the Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    (v)      Appellant is entitled to proportionate cost<\/p>\n
    in the present Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 [K.K. TATED]<\/p>\n
                                                    JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
    asb\/u\/fa334.94<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:48 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009 Bench: K. K. Tated (1) FIRST APPEAL NO.334 OF 1994 Date of decision: 6TH MARCH, 2009 For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } Yes may be allowed to […]<\/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-167703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-17T02:09:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-17T02:09:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1634,\"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\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-17T02:09:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-17T02:09:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-17T02:09:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009"},"wordCount":1634,"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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009","name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-17T02:09:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/167703","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=167703"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167703\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}