{"id":206154,"date":"2009-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2"},"modified":"2016-02-15T12:23:42","modified_gmt":"2016-02-15T06:53:42","slug":"whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: K. K. Tated<\/div>\n
                                 (1)\n\n\n\n\n            FIRST APPEAL NO.111 OF 1994\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                                           \n                  Date of decision:    12TH 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 14:24:25 :::\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.111 OF 1994\n                   IN\n          LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.49 OF 1991\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    Hanmabai w\/o Iranna Patil,\n    (Deceased- Through her LR's)\n\n    Dattatraya s\/o Iranna Patil,\n    Age-47 years, Occu:Agri.,\n    R\/o-Yesgi, Tq-Biloli,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    Dist-Nanded.\n                                .... APPELLANT.\n                        \n                     VERSUS\n\n    1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                       \n       Through District Collector,\n       Nanded.\n\n    2) The Special Land Acquisition\n       Officer, M.I.W. Nanded.\n                                ....       RESPONDENTS.\n      \n\n\n                              ...\n   \n\n\n\n    Mr.Sandeep Gorde Patil Advocate for Appellant.\n    Mr.S.P. Dound, A.G.P. for Respondents.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n               CORAM:     K.K. TATED, J.\n\n\n         RESERVED ON :    27TH FEBRUARY, 2009.\n         PRONOUNCED ON:   12TH MARCH, 2009.\n\n\n\n\n\n    JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    1.       Heard Mr.    Gorde Patil, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
    the Appellant and Mr.              S.P.        Dound, learned A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
    for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    2.        The       present First Appeals preferred by the<\/p>\n
    Appellants\/            original     claimants            against           the<\/p>\n
    Judgment        and     award     dated        14th   December,          1992<\/p>\n
    passed        by Civil Judge, (Senior Division),                      Biloli<\/p>\n
    in    Land Acquisition Reference No.49 of 1991.                              In<\/p>\n
    order        to appreciate the challenge in this Appeal,<\/p>\n
    it    will      be necessary to advert to                few      relevant<\/p>\n
    facts in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        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                       22th<\/p>\n
    June,        1983     for acquiring land of the               Appellants<\/p>\n
    for approach road to Yesgi Bridge.                      The Respondent<\/p>\n
    acquired        land admeasuring 28 Rs from Gut No.6,                         1<\/p>\n
    Hector 25 Rs from Gut No.78, 34 Rs from Gut No.134<\/p>\n
    and     54     Rs from Gut No.138.              Thereafter        S.L.A.O.\n<\/p>\n
    issued        Notification        under Section 6 of the                 Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition           Act dated 30th January, 1986.                    After<\/p>\n
    following           due process of law, S.L.A.O.                  declared<\/p>\n
    award         dated     25th    August,          1988    and        awarded<\/p>\n
    compensation          in   respect        of      acquired        land       as<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
    follows:\n<\/p>\n
    (a)      For Group No.III @ Rs.20,000\/- per Hector,<\/p>\n
    (b)      For Group No.IV @ Rs.21,000\/- per Hector,<\/p>\n
    (c)      For Group No.V @ Rs.22,000\/- per Hector.\n<\/p>\n
    4.       Before passing the award the S.L.A.O.                       took<\/p>\n
    possession<\/p>\n
                    of the acquired land on 9th                 December,<\/p>\n
    1985.      Being aggrieved by the award passed by the<\/p>\n
    S.L.A.O.       on     25th August, 1988,          the     Appellant\/<\/p>\n
    original       claimant        preferred        Reference          under<\/p>\n
    Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed<\/p>\n
    compensation         in    respect       of    acquired       land        @<\/p>\n
    Rs.30,000\/-      per acre.        The Appellant also claimed<\/p>\n
    a sum of Rs.50,000\/- towards Mango and Guava trees<\/p>\n
    and a sum of Rs.1,75,500\/- towards well, bore well<\/p>\n
    and     pump house.         The Reference Court by            Judgment<\/p>\n
    and     award dated 14th December, 1992 held that the<\/p>\n
    claimants      are entitled compensation in respect of<\/p>\n
    acquired      land        @ Rs.25,000\/- per Hector from                Gut<\/p>\n
    No.134 & 138 and Rs.18,750\/- per Hector for a land<\/p>\n
    from    Gut    No.78 & Gut No.6.              The Reference        Court<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
    also     awarded          a sum of Rs.75,000\/- towards                   Mango<\/p>\n
    trees.         Being aggrieved by the said Judgment                          and<\/p>\n
    award     passed          by the Reference Court               dated       14th<\/p>\n
    December,           1992, the Appellant\/ original                   claimant<\/p>\n
    preferred           present First Appeal for enhancement of<\/p>\n
    compensation          in respect of acquired land as                       well<\/p>\n
    as fruit bearing trees.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        Mr.Gorde          Patil, learned counsel                appearing<\/p>\n
    on     behalf        of     the Appellant submitted               that       the<\/p>\n
    Reference<\/p>\n
                        Court erred in coming to the conclusion<\/p>\n
    that     the        claimants are entitled compensation                        in<\/p>\n
    respect         of         acquired     land      at     the      rate         of<\/p>\n
    Rs.25,000\/-          and     Rs.18,750\/-          per      Hector        only.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned        counsel       for Appellant further                submitted<\/p>\n
    that     the Reference Court ought to have held                            that<\/p>\n
    claimants           are entitled to compensation in respect<\/p>\n
    of     acquired        land at the rate of Rs.30,000\/-                       per<\/p>\n
    acre      i.e.            Rs.75,000\/-       per        Hector.         Learned<\/p>\n
    counsel        for the Appellant further submitted                         that<\/p>\n
    the Reference Court should have awarded additional<\/p>\n
    compensation          in respect of fruit bearing trees as<\/p>\n
    claimed        by     the     claimants        in       their     Reference<\/p>\n
    Application            under    Section        18       of       the       Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition          Act.      Learned counsel for                Appellant<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
    further submitted that the Reference Court did not<\/p>\n
    take     cognizance          of    the fact that         the     acquired<\/p>\n
    portion        of all four Gut Nos.           6, 78, 134 and              138<\/span><\/p>\n
    was     having all time working water well facilities<\/p>\n
    with bore but due to acquisition remaining portion<\/p>\n
    of     land     became dry land.            On the basis of           these<\/p>\n
    submissions,           learned     counsel for      the        Appellant<\/p>\n
    submitted           that the Reference Court ought to                   have<\/p>\n
    held     that the claimants are entitled to                      enhanced<\/p>\n
    compensation as claimed by them in their Reference<\/p>\n
    Application            under
\n                                ig    Section    18     of         the      Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition           Act.     Mr.Gorde Patil, learned counsel<\/p>\n
    for     the     Appellant pointed out that for the                      same<\/p>\n
    project        Respondents        acquired another lands                from<\/p>\n
    same     village by same Notification under Section 4<\/p>\n
    of     the Land Acquisition Act.              He further           pointed<\/p>\n
    out     that        in respect of those lands the                S.L.A.O.\n<\/p>\n
    passed        common award dated 30th November, 1981                        in<\/p>\n
    respect        of     present      claimants as well           as     lands<\/p>\n
    involved        in     those acquisition.         He      pointed         out<\/p>\n
    that     being        aggrieved by the award passed by                    the<\/p>\n
    S.L.A.O.,           those    claimants       preferred         Reference<\/p>\n
    under     Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act                          and<\/p>\n
    same     came        to be registered as          Land      Acquisition<\/p>\n
    Reference           Nos.     39 of 1990, 40 of 1990 and 41                  of<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
    1990.      Those L.A.R.                came to be decided by                 Civil<\/p>\n
    Judge,     Senior             Division, Biloli by             Judgment          and<\/p>\n
    award      dated               28th     June,      1991         and      awarded<\/p>\n
    compensation             in      respect of acquired land at                    the<\/p>\n
    rate of Rs.25,000\/- and Rs.18,750\/- per acre.                                   The<\/p>\n
    certified           copy       of      the said Judgment           and       award<\/p>\n
    dated     28th           June,        1991 passed       by      Civil       Judge,<\/p>\n
    Senior     Division,             Biloli in L.A.R.             Nos.       39,      40<\/span><\/p>\n
    and     41 of 1990 was produced before the                            Reference<\/p>\n
    Court     and marked as Exhibit 54.                      On going through<\/p>\n
    the     said        Judgment,
\n                                   ig      it is amply clear              that      the<\/p>\n
    Reference           Court erred in observing at the time of<\/p>\n
    considering           the certified copy of the Judgment at<\/p>\n
    Exhibit        54        that what is stated therein                   is      with<\/p>\n
    reference           to        Hector    and not         Acre.      Hence        the<\/p>\n
    submission               of     the     learned         counsel       for       the<\/p>\n
    Appellant           needs       to be accepted and given                   effect<\/p>\n
    to.\n<\/p>\n
    6.        Mr.            Gorde Patil, learned counsel for                       the<\/p>\n
    Appellant           further         submitted that           the      Reference<\/p>\n
    Court     erred           in     coming to        the     conclusion           that<\/p>\n
    claimants           failed       to produce cogent evidence                     for<\/p>\n
    claiming enhanced compensation in respect of lands<\/p>\n
    and bore wells in the suit land.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
    7.        Mr.         Dound,       learned A.G.P.        appearing           on<\/p>\n
    behalf     of        the     Respondents       submitted        that       the<\/p>\n
    claimants           are not entitled to any enhancement                      in<\/p>\n
    respect        of     the     acquired land.          Learned         A.G.P.<\/p>\n
\n\n    submitted           that the Reference Court has considered\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    the     sale        deed at Exhibits 52 and 53 as                 well       as\n\n    Judgment        and award passed in L.A.R.                 Nos.       39, 40<\/span>\n\n    and     41 of 1990 for coming to the conclusion                          that\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    the     claimants          are     entitled to       compensation            in\n\n    respect         of\n                               \n                               acquired     land    at     the      rate         of\n\n    Rs.25,000\/-            and       Rs.18,750\/-      per      Hector.           He\n                              \n    further         pointed           out    that        Reference         Court\n\n<\/pre>\n
    considered the facts that claimants have failed to<\/p>\n
    produce        cogent        evidence       to show that        they       are<\/p>\n
    entitled        to     enhanced compensation in respect                      of<\/p>\n
    fruit bearing trees, wells and tube wells.                            On the<\/p>\n
    basis     of        these submissions, learned A.G.P.                      Mr.<\/p>\n
    Dound appearing for Respondents submitted that the<\/p>\n
    present Appeal to be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
    8.        Before        considering the evidence on                   record<\/p>\n
    and     sale        deeds produced by          Appellant\/         original<\/p>\n
    claimant, we have to keep in mind that at the time<\/p>\n
    of    fixing         market value of the acquired land,                      we<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
    have     to take into account the Apex Court Judgment<\/p>\n
    in     the   matter    of     Chimanlal   Hargovinddas             vs.<\/p>\n
    Special      Land     Acquisition    Officer,         AIR<\/a>      1988,<\/p>\n
    Supreme      Court,   1652.\n<\/p>\n
                          1652      The Apex   Court          in     this<\/p>\n
    matter held that the market value for compensation<\/p>\n
    in respect of acquired land is to be determined as<\/p>\n
    on     crucial   date of publication       of      Notification<\/p>\n
    under     Section     4 of the Land Acquisition Act                and<\/p>\n
    also     to consider the relevant facts prevailing on<\/p>\n
    the     date of issuing Notification under Section                    4<\/p>\n
    of<\/p>\n
           the Land Acquisition Act.      Para 3 and 4 of the<\/p>\n
    said Judgment read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “3      Before tackling the    problem of<\/p>\n
             valuation of the land under acquisition it
\n             is   necessary  to   make   some   general<\/p>\n
             observations.  The compulsion to do so has
\n             arisen as the trial Court has virtually
\n             treated the award rendered by the Land
\n             Acquisition Officer as a Judgment under
\n             Appeal and has evinced unawareness of the<\/p>\n
             methodology for valuation to some extent.
\n             The true position therefore requires to be
\n             capsulized.<\/p>\n
             “4      The following factors                  must         be
\n             etched on the mental screen:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (1) A reference under Section 18 of
\n                        the Land Acquisition Act is not an
\n                        appeal against the Award and the
\n                        Court cannot take into account the
\n                        material relied upon by the Land
\n                        Acquisition Officer in his Award<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:25 :::<\/span>
\n                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
       unless   the same   material             is
\n       produced and proved   before            the
\n       Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (2) So also the award of the Land
\n       Acquisition Officer is not to be<\/p>\n
       treated as a Judgment of the trial
\n       court open or exposed to challenge
\n       before    the Court    hearing   the
\n       Reference.    It is merely an offer
\n       made    by the    Land   Acquisition<\/p>\n
       Officer and the material utilized
\n       by him for making his valuation
\n       cannot be utilized by the Court
\n       unless produced and proved before
\n       it.    It is not the function of the
\n       court to sit in appeal against the<\/p>\n
       award, approve or disapprove its
\n       reasoning, or correct its errors or<\/p>\n
       affirm, modify or      reverse
\n       conclusions reached by the Land
\n                                        the<\/p>\n
       Acquisition Officer, as if it were
\n       an appellate Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (3) The court has to be treat the
\n       Reference as an original proceeding
\n       before it and determine the market
\n       value afresh on the basis of the
\n       material produced before it.\n<\/p>\n
       (4) The claimant is in the position<\/p>\n
       of a plaintiff who has to show that
\n       the price offered for his land in
\n       the award is inadequate on the
\n       basis of the materials produced in
\n       the Court. Of course the materials<\/p>\n
       placed and proved by the other side
\n       can also be taken into account for
\n       this purpose.\n<\/p>\n
       (5) The market value of the land
\n       under   acquisition has     to   be
\n       determined as on the crucial date<\/p>\n
       of publication of the notification
\n       under   Section 4 of     the   Land
\n       Acquisition    Act      (date    of
\n       notifications under Ss. 6 and 9
\n       are irrelevant).\n<\/p>\n
                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:25 :::<\/span>
\n                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
       (6) The determination has to be
\n       made standing on the date line of
\n       valuation (date of publication of<\/p>\n
       notification under S.4) as if the
\n       valuer is a hypothetical purchaser
\n       willing to purchase land from the<\/p>\n
       open market and is prepared to pay
\n       a reasonable price as on that day.
\n       It has also to be assumed that the
\n       vendor is willing to sale the land
\n       at a reasonable price.\n<\/p>\n
       (7) In doing so by the instances
\n       method, the Court has to correlate
\n       the market value reflected in the
\n       most comparable   instances which
\n       provides the index of the market<\/p>\n
       value.\n<\/p>\n
       (8) Only genuine instances have to
\n       be taken into account (some times
\n       instances    are      rigged    in
\n       anticipation   of  acquisition of<\/p>\n
       land).\n<\/p>\n
       (9)     Even    post   notification
\n       instances can be taken into account
\n       (1) if they are very proximate, (2)
\n       genuine and (3) the acquisition<\/p>\n
       itself    has not   motivated   the
\n       purchaser to pay higher price on<\/p>\n
       account      of    the    resultant
\n       improvement     in      development
\n       prospects.\n<\/p>\n
       (10) The most comparable instances<\/p>\n
       out of genuine instances have to be
\n       identified   on     the   following
\n       considerations:\n<\/p>\n
              (i) Proximity       from       time\n              angle\n\n\n\n\n\n              (ii)     proximity             from\n              situation angle\n\n       (11)    Having     identified   the\n<\/pre>\n
       instances which provides the index
\n       of market value the price reflected<\/p>\n
                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
       therein may be taken as the norm
\n       and the market value of the land
\n       under acquisition may be deduced by<\/p>\n
       making suitable adjustments for the
\n       plus and minus factors vis-a-vis
\n       land under acquisition by placing<\/p>\n
       the two in juxtaposition.\n<\/p>\n
       (12) A balance sheet of plus and
\n       minus factors may be drawn for this
\n       purpose and the relevant factor may<\/p>\n
       be evaluated in terms of price
\n       variation as a prudent purchaser
\n       would do.\n<\/p>\n
       (13) The market value of the land
\n       under acquisition has thereafter to<\/p>\n
       be deduced by loading the price
\n       reflected in the instance taken as<\/p>\n
       norm for plus factors and unloading
\n       it for minus factors.\n<\/p>\n
       (14) The exercise      indicated in
\n       clause (11) to (13) has to be
\n       undertaken in a common sense manner
\n       as a prudent man of the world of
\n       business   would   do.      We   may
\n       illustrate some such illustrative<\/p>\n
       (not exhaustive) factors:-\n<\/p>\n
       Plus Factors.\n<\/p>\n
       1.   Smallness of size<\/p>\n
       2.   Proximity to a road<\/p>\n
       3.   Frontage on a road<\/p>\n
       4.   Nearness to developed area<\/p>\n
       5.   Regular shape<\/p>\n
       6.   Level vis-a-vis          land      under
\n       acquisition<\/p>\n
       7.    Special value for an owner              of
\n       an   adjoining property to whom               it<\/p>\n
                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
       may   have        some     very        special
\n       advantage.\n<\/p>\n
       Minus factors.\n<\/p>\n
       1.   Largeness of area<\/p>\n
       2.   situation in the interior at a
\n       distance from the road.\n<\/p>\n
       3.   Narrow strip of land with very<\/p>\n
       small frontage compared to depth<\/p>\n
       4.   Lower level    requiring   the
\n       depressed portion to be filled up<\/p>\n
       5.    Remoteness         from      developed<\/p>\n
       locality<\/p>\n
       6.   Some special disadvantageous
\n       factor
\n       purchaser
\n                 which would   deter   a<\/p>\n
       (15)   The evaluation    of   these
\n       factors of course depends on the
\n       facts of each case. There cannot
\n       be any hard and fast or rigid rule.\n<\/p>\n
       Common sense is the best and most
\n       reliable guide. For instance, take<\/p>\n
       the factor regarding the size.    A
\n       building plot of land say 500 to
\n       1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared
\n       with a large tract or block of land
\n       say 10000 eq.      yds.   or more.\n<\/p>\n
       Firstly while a smaller plot is
\n       within the reach of many, a large
\n       block of land will have to be
\n       developed by preparing a lay out,
\n       carving out roads, leaving open
\n       space, plotting out smaller plots,
\n       waiting for purchasers (meanwhile<\/p>\n
       the invested money will be blocked
\n       up)    and     the    hazards    of
\n       enterpreneur.   The factor can be
\n       discounted by making a deduction by
\n       way   of   an   allowance   at   an
\n       appropriate rate ranging approx.\n<\/p>\n
                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
                           between 20% to 50% to account for
\n                           land required to be set apart for
\n                           carving lands and      plotting out<\/p>\n
                           small plots. The discounting will
\n                           to some extent will also depend on
\n                           whether it is a rural area or urban<\/p>\n
                           area, whether building activities
\n                           is picking up, and whether waiting
\n                           period during which the capital of
\n                           the enterpreneur would be locked
\n                           up, will be longer or shorter and<\/p>\n
                           the attendant hazards.\n<\/p>\n
                           (16) Every case must be dealt with
\n                           on its own fact pattern bearing in
\n                           mind as these factors as a prudent
\n                           purchaser of land in which position<\/p>\n
                           the Judge must place himself.\n<\/p>\n
                           (17) These are general guide-lines
\n                           to be applied with understanding
\n                           informed with common sense.”\n<\/p>\n
    9.        In the above mentioned matter the claimants<\/p>\n
    produced        two     sale   deeds at Exhibit 52            and      53.\n<\/p>\n
    Exhibit 52 is a sale deed dated 1st April, 1981 in<\/p>\n
    which     the     land     admeasuring 79      Rs      from        Survey<\/p>\n
    No.68\/3        at Yesgi, Taluka-Biloli,        District-Nanded<\/p>\n
    was     sold     for     Rs.14,000\/-.    The    rate        comes        to<\/p>\n
    Rs.17,721\/-           per Hector.    At Exhibit 53 sale              deed<\/p>\n
    dated 2nd May, 1981 produced by the claimants.                           In<\/p>\n
    this     sale     deed the land admeasuring 43                Rs     from<\/p>\n
    Survey     No.27 Hissa No.4 situated at village Yesgi<\/p>\n
    was     sold     for     Rs.10,000\/-.    The    rate        comes        to<\/p>\n
    Rs.23,255\/- per Hector.             When these sale deeds are<\/p>\n
    considered        for     fixing market value          of     acquired<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
    land, we have to consider 10% increase per year in<\/p>\n
    the     market          value.      For this I can rely             on     the<\/p>\n
    Judgment           of     Division Bench of this Court in                  the<\/p>\n
    matter        of     Goa       Housing    Board   and      another         vs.<\/p>\n
    Attorney           of     Communidade of Mapusa,           reported          in<\/p>\n
    2008 (1) Bom.             C.R.     Page 356.\n<\/p>\n
    10.      But in the peculiar facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
    of     the     present case, instead of considering                        the<\/p>\n
    sale     deeds          and     other evidence produced             by     the<\/p>\n
    claimants,           it
\n                                igis better to rely on the            Judgment<\/p>\n
    and     award        dated 28th June, 1991 passed by                     Civil<\/p>\n
    Judge, Senior Division, Biloli in L.A.R.                          Nos.       39<\/p>\n
    of     1990, 40 of 1990 and 41 of 1990.                    In the         said<\/p>\n
    proceeding,             the    S.L.A.O.        issued      Notification<\/p>\n
    under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act dated 12th<\/p>\n
    February,           1981 and passed award on 30th November,<\/p>\n
    1981.        Lands were acquired for the same project as<\/p>\n
    involved in present case.                 The common Notification<\/p>\n
    under        Section          4 of the Land Acquisition Act                was<\/p>\n
    issued        by     the S.L.A.O.         and also      passed        common<\/p>\n
    award        for     fixing market value in respect of                     the<\/p>\n
    acquired           lands.      Considering these facts, this is<\/p>\n
    a     best     piece of evidence to rely in the                     present<\/p>\n
    matter for fixing the market value of the acquired<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
    land.     The Apex Court in the matter of Mahadev vs.<\/p>\n
    Asstt.      Commissioner<\/a>   \/Land Acquisition      Officer,<\/p>\n
    2002    (9) Supreme Court Cases Page 487.       held that<\/p>\n
    if the Government has accepted the award in regard<\/p>\n
    to     the similar lands all of which were sought            to<\/p>\n
    be     acquired under the same notification, in          that<\/p>\n
    case    Acquiring   Body   should   accept    the        same<\/p>\n
    position in other matters.     For this purpose Paras<\/p>\n
    9    and 10 of the Judgment are relevant, which read<\/p>\n
    as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “9.      Having heard the counsel for the
\n             parties and perused the records, we do not
\n             think the High Court was justified in
\n             interfering with the award of the Reference
\n             Court.    The High Court ought to have seen
\n             that the acquiring authority viz.       the<\/p>\n
             Government has accepted the award in regard
\n             to similar lands, all of which were sought<\/p>\n
             to be acquired under the same notification.
\n             The    High court has     not come to the
\n             conclusion that the lands of the appellant
\n             are in any way inferior to the lands of
\n             those owners in whose favour the Reference<\/p>\n
             Court award has become final. In such a
\n             situation, we find it difficult to agree
\n             with the view taken by the High Court
\n             mainly because of the       fact that   the
\n             acquiring authority itself has accepted the
\n             award of the Reference Court. The appeal
\n             before the High Court was not based on any<\/p>\n
             question of law applicable to the peculiar
\n             facts of the appeal before it. It was also
\n             an appeal on facts on the basis of which
\n             the learned District Judge confirmed the
\n             award.    If the very same evidence was
\n             acceptable to the acquiring authority in<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
             regard to six other owners, we fail to
\n             understand why it should not be acceptable
\n             to the acquiring authority in regard to the<\/p>\n
             appeal   before us.    At   the   cost   of
\n             repetition, it may be stated that it is not
\n             the case of the acquiring authority that<\/p>\n
             the land of the appellant, is in any way,
\n             inferior to the other lands acquired under
\n             the same notification.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11.      In similar way our High Court in the matter<\/p>\n
    of     Bayaji Tatya Kaluge vs.     State of Maharashtra,<\/p>\n
    reported       in 2007 (2) All M.R.   Page 316 has taken<\/p>\n
    a view that if the lands situated in same village,<\/p>\n
    acquired for same purpose under same Notification,<\/p>\n
    in     that     case   claimants      are    entitled            to<\/p>\n
    compensation at the same rate on ground of parity.\n<\/p>\n
    Head Note of the said Authority reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
             Land Acquisition Act (1894), Ss.4(1), 18-
\n             Acquisition of land- Claim of compensation\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             – Parity – Lands situated in same village,
\n             acquired   for same   purpose under same
\n             notification – Claimants are entitled to<\/p>\n
             compensation at the same rate on ground of
\n             parity. 2003 AIR SCW 5188 – Ref. to.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12.      It    is pertinent to note that I made            query<\/p>\n
    with    the Mr.    Dound, learned A.G.P.       appearing on<\/p>\n
    behalf of the Respondent State to find out whether<\/p>\n
    the    State    has preferred any Appeal       against         the<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                             17<\/span><\/p>\n
    Judgment and award dated 28th June, 1991 in L.A.R.\n<\/p>\n
    Nos.         39     of    1990, 40 of 1990 and            41    of   1990.\n<\/p>\n
    After         taking        instructions          from         Government<\/p>\n
    Pleader’s          Office,       the   learned      A.G.P.        made      a<\/p>\n
    statement that neither the claimants nor the State<\/p>\n
    has     challenged the said Judgment dated 28th June,<\/p>\n
    1991     either before this Court or any other                       Court<\/p>\n
    and the said Judgment has become final.                        Therefore<\/p>\n
    it     was        incumbent      on the part of       the       Reference<\/p>\n
    Court to rely on the Judgment and award dated 28th<\/p>\n
    June,<\/p>\n
                 1991 passed in L.A.R.           Nos.     39, 40 and           41<\/span><\/p>\n
    of     1990.        Considering these facts I hold that the<\/p>\n
    claimants          are entitled to compensation in respect<\/p>\n
    of     acquired          land at the rate of Rs.25,000\/-                 and<\/p>\n
    Rs.18,750\/- per acre.\n<\/p>\n
    13.      Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted<\/p>\n
    that     claimants are entitled enhanced compensation<\/p>\n
    in     respect of Mango trees, Guava trees, well                         and<\/p>\n
    bore     well.           In respect of Mango         trees       whatever<\/p>\n
    amount claimed by the claimants in their Reference<\/p>\n
    Application              under    Section    18      of        the     Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition          Act      i.e.     a sum of Rs.75,000\/-,             the<\/p>\n
    same     awarded by the Reference Court.                       Therefore,<\/p>\n
    there        is no question of enhancement in respect of<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                          18<\/span><\/p>\n
    Mango trees.        So far Guava trees are concerned, at<\/p>\n
    the     time of joint verification it is specifically<\/p>\n
    noted     in     the   report that those trees               were       not<\/p>\n
    found     on the field.        Not only that, the Appellant<\/p>\n
    failed to make any claim to that effect before the<\/p>\n
    S.L.A.O.         Considering    these facts the              Reference<\/p>\n
    Court     rightly rejected Appellant’s claim                     holding<\/p>\n
    that      the     claimants     were        not      entitled           any<\/p>\n
    compensation in respect of Guava trees.                      Regarding<\/p>\n
    well    and      bore wells, the Reference               Court      after<\/p>\n
    considering<\/p>\n
                       the material on record, rightly                    held<\/p>\n
    that    the      claimants failed to produce any                   cogent<\/p>\n
    evidence for additional compensation.                     After going<\/p>\n
    through        the evidence of PW1 at Exhibit 84, I hold<\/p>\n
    that    the      claimants     are        not     entitled       to     any<\/p>\n
    additional compensation in respect of the well and<\/p>\n
    the bore well.\n<\/p>\n
    14.       The     learned    counsel       for     the     Appellant\/<\/p>\n
    original        claimant    submitted that          the      Reference<\/p>\n
    Court     erred in coming to the conclusion that                        the<\/p>\n
    Appellants’        land admeasuring 28 Rs from Gut                    No.6<\/p>\n
    and land admeasuring 1 Hector 25 Rs from Gut No.78<\/p>\n
    are seasonally irrigated land though the same were<\/p>\n
    perennially        irrigated    lands.          To that      effect        I<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                          19<\/span><\/p>\n
    have     gone     through     the     documents          produced         by<\/p>\n
    Appellant        at Exhibit 89, 90, 91 and 92 which                     are<\/p>\n
    7\/12     extracts        in respect of lands Gut             Nos.         6,<\/p>\n
    138,     78     and 134.      These 7\/12 extracts show                that<\/p>\n
    the lands were Jirayat lands.                But considering the<\/p>\n
    evidence        on record, the Reference Court held that<\/p>\n
    lands     involved       in   Gut Nos.       134    and      138      were<\/p>\n
    perennially        irrigated land and lands involved                      in<\/p>\n
    Gut     Nos.      6     and 78     were   seasonally         irrigated<\/p>\n
    lands.         Therefore,     the contention raised by                  Mr.<\/p>\n
    Sandeep        Gorde<\/p>\n
                             Patil,    learned     counsel         for      the<\/p>\n
    Appellant\/         original       claimant     in        respect          of<\/p>\n
    classification of the land is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    15.       In     view     of the above mentioned facts                  and<\/p>\n
    circumstances, the present Appeal preferred by the<\/p>\n
    Appellant\/        original claimant is partly allowed to<\/p>\n
    the extent that Appellant is entitled compensation<\/p>\n
    in respect of land admeasuring 28 Rs from Gut No.6<\/p>\n
    and land admeasuring 1 Hector 25 Rs from Gut No.78<\/p>\n
    at      the     rate     of      Rs.18,750\/-       per    acre       being<\/p>\n
    seasonally        irrigated       land;   and at the           rate       of<\/p>\n
    Rs.25,000\/-        per     acre    for land from          Gut      No.134<\/p>\n
    admeasuring 34 Rs and Gut No.138 admeasuring 54 Rs<\/p>\n
    being perennial irrigated land.                Hence the Order:\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                  20<\/span><\/p>\n
                   O R D E R<\/p>\n
     (i)       The        Judgment and award dated               14th<\/p>\n
     December,        1992     passed     by    Civil         Judge,<\/p>\n
     Senior Division, Biloli in L.A.R.                    No.49 of<\/p>\n
     1991     is     modified to the extent             that       the<\/p>\n
     Appellant        is     entitled        compensation            in<\/p>\n
     respect        of land admeasuring 28 Rs from Gut<\/p>\n
     No.6     and
\n                    igland admeasuring 1 Hector 25                   Rs<\/p>\n
     from     Gut No.78 at the rate of               Rs.18,750\/-\n<\/p>\n
     per    acre being seasonally irrigated                    land;\n<\/p>\n
     and at the rate of Rs.25,000\/- per acre for<\/p>\n
     land     from Gut No.134 admeasuring 34 Rs and<\/p>\n
     Gut      No.138         admeasuring       54     Rs       being<\/p>\n
     perennial irrigated land.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)      The        Reference Court is directed to<\/p>\n
     calculate the enhanced compensation payable<\/p>\n
     to     the Appellant\/ original claimant                   after<\/p>\n
     giving notice to both the sides within four<\/p>\n
     months        from    receipt      of     the    Writ         and<\/p>\n
     certified        copy of this Judgment from                 this<\/p>\n
     Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                21<\/span><\/p>\n
           (iii)     No order as to the costs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n                                          \n                                     [K.K. TATED]\n\n                                        JUDGE.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    asb\/u\/fa111.94\n\n\n\n\n                                \n                     \n                    \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:24:26 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2009 Bench: K. K. Tated (1) FIRST APPEAL NO.111 OF 1994 Date of decision: 12TH MARCH, 2009 For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } Yes may be allowed […]<\/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-206154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 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-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2\" \/>\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 The State Of Maharashtra on 12 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-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-15T06:53:42+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=\"20 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-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-15T06:53:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":3647,\"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-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-15T06:53:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2#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 The State Of Maharashtra on 12 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 The State Of Maharashtra on 12 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-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-15T06:53:42+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-15T06:53:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2"},"wordCount":3647,"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-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2","name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-15T06:53:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-march-2009-2#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 The State Of Maharashtra on 12 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\/206154","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=206154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}