{"id":25162,"date":"2009-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-06-22T17:00:27","modified_gmt":"2017-06-22T11:30:27","slug":"whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 28 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 28 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: R. V. More<\/div>\n
                          1\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.631 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.632 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.634 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                \n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.635 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.636 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                       \n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2008\n             ig         WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.638 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.639 OF 2008\n           \n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.640 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.641 OF 2008\n      \n\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.642 OF 2008\n   \n\n\n\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.643 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.644 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.645 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.646 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.647 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.649 OF 2008\n                        WITH\n      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.650 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:33:11 :::\n                                          2\n\n\n\n                                 DATE OF DECISION : 28TH APRIL, 2009.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n                                                    \n    For ap proval an d signature of :\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.V.MORE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
    1.    Whether Reporters of Local Papers m ay be               ):\n<\/p>\n
          allowed to see the judg me nt ?           )\n\n\n    2.\n                        \n          To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                 ):\n                       \n    3.    Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair            ):\n          copy of the judgment ?                    )\n      \n\n<\/pre>\n
    4.    Whether this case involves a substantial ):\n<\/p>\n
          q uestion of law as to the interpretation of )<\/p>\n
          the Constitution of India, 1950, or any )
\n          Order m a de thereu n der ?                             )<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    5.    Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil             ):\n<\/p>\n
          Judges ?                                       )\n\n\n    6.    Whether the case involves a n important                 ):\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
          q uestion of law a n d whether a copy of the )
\n          judgme nt should be sent to Nagpur,                     )
\n          Aurangabad & Goa Offices?                    )<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
\n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/p>\n
               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.631 OF 2008<\/p>\n
    Shri Gorakh Sripati Mahingade & Ors.                            …
\n    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           (Claimants)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                          ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                     WITH<\/p>\n
               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.632 OF 2008
\n    Shri Bhagwat Bhau Lokare (deceased)
\n                        ig                                          ….\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    through L.HR's.                                        (Claimants)\n    Mahad u Bhagwat Lokare & Ors.\n                      \n    V\/s.\n    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                          ...\n    Respo n de nts.\n      \n\n                                     WITH\n<\/pre>\n
               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2008<\/p>\n
    Smt. Bhagarthi Changdeo Gore (Died)                             ….
\n    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    through LR’s Smt. Kamal H. Upase                       (Claimants)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                          ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                     WITH<\/p>\n
               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.634 OF 2008
\n    Smt. Sujata Rajara m Pansare                           ….Petitioner
\n                                                           (Claimant)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                          ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      WITH
\n                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.635 OF 2008<\/p>\n
    Shri Vallimo ha m ma d Niza mso Mulani & Anr.                        ….
\n    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                (Claimants)<\/p>\n
    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                               ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                      WITH
\n                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.636 OF 2008<\/p>\n
    Smt. Phulabai Dattatraya Shingare                                    ….
\n    Petitioner<\/p>\n
    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
                         ig                                      (Claima nt)\n\n    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                               ....\n                       \n    Respo n de nts.\n\n                                      WITH\n<\/pre>\n
                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2008<\/p>\n
    Shri Khanderao Gan pat Gore                                 ….Petitioner<\/p>\n
                                                                 (Claima nt)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                               ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                      WITH
\n                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.638 OF 2008
\n    Shri Raghuveer Bhagwan Mahingade & Anr.                              ….\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                (Claimants)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                               ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr. T. D. Desh m ukh for the Petitioners in all the CRAs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Mrs. Geeta Mulekar, AGP for the Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                 —————\n<\/p>\n
                                     WITH<\/p>\n
               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.639 OF 2008<\/p>\n
    Shri Vishwanath Dina nath Gore (deceased)                          ….\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    through LR’s                                               (Claima nts)\n<\/p>\n
    1. Shri Jalindar Vishwanath Gore & Ors.
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       ….\n<\/p>\n
    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                     WITH
\n               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.640 OF 2008
\n    Shri Santosh Kashinath Bhise                              ….Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                (Claima nt)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                             ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                     WITH<\/p>\n
               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.641 OF 2008
\n    Smt. Pusp ha Nagnath Deokar                               ….Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              (Claimant)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                             ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                     WITH
\n               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.642 OF 2008
\n    Shri Santosh Kashinath Bhise                              ….Petitioner<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                 (Claima nt)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                               ….\n<\/p>\n
    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                       WITH
\n                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.643 OF 2008
\n    Shri Harakchan d Bhagchan d Dhoka                                    ….\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 (Claima nt)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                               ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                        ig             WITH
\n                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.644 OF 2008
\n    Shri Bhagwan Shankar Gore & Ors.                            ….Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 (Claima nts)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                               ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr. T D. Desh m ukh for the Petitioners in all the CRAs.
\n    Mrs. A.A. Mane, AGP for the Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                       WITH<\/p>\n
                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.645 OF 2008
\n    Shri Avinash Sripati Gore & Ors.                                     ….
\n    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 (Claima nts)<\/p>\n
    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                               ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                       WITH
\n                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.646 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
    Shri Kisan Bhagwan Madane & Anr.                                 ….
\n    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             (Claima nts)<\/p>\n
    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                           ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                     WITH<\/p>\n
               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 647 OF 2008
\n    Shri Ramcha n dra Dina nath Gore (Died)                          ….
\n    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    Through LR’s :                                           (Claima nts)<\/p>\n
    1. Yamunabai Ramcha n dra Gore & Ors.
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    Respo n de nt<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                           ….\n<\/p>\n
                                     WITH
\n               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2008<\/p>\n
    Smt. Janabai Gajendra Kambale                                    ….
\n    Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             (Claima nt)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                           ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                     WITH
\n               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.649 OF 2008<\/p>\n
    Shri Bhan u das Dhar ma Gore                            ….Petitioner
\n                                                             (Claima nt)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                           ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                     WITH<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.650 OF 2008
\n    Shri Gorakh Sripati Mahingade & Ors.                                  ….\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  (Claima nts)
\n    V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.                                ….
\n    Respo n de nts.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr. T. D. Desh m ukh for the Petitioners in all the CRAs.
\n    Ms. S.P. Manchekar, AGP for the Respon de nts.\n<\/p>\n
                                          CORAM : R. V. MORE, J.\n<\/p>\n
                         ig               DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2009.\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n                       \n<\/pre>\n
          Heard learned Counsel ap pearing for the respective p arties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.    Rule in all the above Civil Revision Applications. By consent, Rule<\/p>\n
    is m a de returnable forthwith an d heard finally.\n<\/p>\n
    3.    The issue involved in above Civil Revision Applications is one and<\/p>\n
    the sa me therefore, they are being disposed of by this co m mo n order.
\n    The facts involved in the Civil Revision Application No.631 of 2008 are
\n    being referred for this co m mo n order.\n<\/p>\n
    4.    All these Revisions take exception to the order dated 20th October,
\n    2005 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, rejecting the
\n    Petitioners’ reference filed u n der section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
    5.    Brief facts giving rise to the prese nt Revisions are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
          i.     The Petitioners’ lan d is acquired for developing Kurduwadi
\n          Bypass Road u n der the Land Acquisition Act. Notification u n der<\/p>\n
          section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894 (hereafter called
\n          “the said Act”) was issued o n        6th Dece m ber, 2001. Thereafter,
\n          declaration u n der section 6 of the said Act was issued and<\/p>\n
          p u blished in the Govern me nt Gazette o n 18th March, 2002 a nd the
\n          Respo n de nt No.2 thereafter passed Award u n der section 11 of the
\n          said Act o n 2n d April, 2004. There is n o dispute that the Award was<\/p>\n
          passed in the absence of the Petitioners. The n otice of the Award<\/p>\n
          as conte m plated u n der section 12(2) of the said Act was thereafter
\n          issued a n d the Petitioners received the same o n 24th Nove mber,
\n          2004. The Petitioners im mediately thereafter o n 23rd Dece m ber,<\/p>\n
          2004 m a de a reference u n der section 18 of the said Act to the
\n          Respo n de nt No.2, Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special
\n          Land Acquisition Officer, as stated above, by the imp ugned order<\/p>\n
          rejected the Reference an d he nce the present Revision.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6.    The Respo n de nt No.2 rejected the Petitioners’ reference on three
\n    grou n ds, n a mely, (i) the Reference is n ot m a de within the period of six<\/p>\n
    m o nt hs fro m the date of declaration of Award, (ii) that the Petitioners
\n    accepted the a mo u nt of co m pe nsation without protest an d (iii) that the
\n    Petitioners did n ot file a ny objection, reply n or raised a ny claim in<\/p>\n
    respo nse to the n otice u n der section 9(3) (4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    7.    Having heard the learned Cou nsel for the respective parties a nd
\n    having perused the imp ugned order alongwith relevant records, I find,
\n    all the three grou n ds on which the Petitioners’ reference was rejected are<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
    devoid of any substance. The first groun d for rejection of reference is
\n    that the reference u n der section 18 of the Act was n ot m a de within the<\/p>\n
    period stipulated in sub-section 2 of section 18 of the Land Acquisition
\n    Act. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 18 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “Provided that every such ap plication shall be m a de, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (a) if the person m aking it was present or represented before
\n             the Collector at the time when he m a de his award, within
\n             six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice<\/p>\n
             from the Collector u n der section 12, sub-section (2), or
\n             within six m o nths fro m the date of the Collector’s award,
\n             whichever period shall first expire.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The clause (a) of the proviso ap plies where the perso n who has
\n    m a de the ap plication was present or represented before the Collector at<\/p>\n
    the time when award was m a de. This clause has no ap plication in the<\/p>\n
    prese nt case, since the Petitioners were n either present before the
\n    Collector n or ha d they bee n represented when the award was m a de.
\n    Un der clause (b) of the proviso, the ap plication has to be filed within the<\/p>\n
    period of six weeks from receipt of the notice fro m the Collector u n der
\n    sub-section (2) of section 12 or within six m o nt hs fro m the date of the
\n    Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. The words “date of<\/p>\n
    the Collector’s award” were interpreted in the judg me nt of the Apex
\n    Court in Raja Harish Chan dra Raj Singh Versus Deputy Land Acquisition
\n    Officer, (1962) SCR 676 : A.I.R.1961 Supre me Court 1500. The Apex Court
\n    held that the award of the Collector being in the n ature of ten der or offer
\n    m a de by the Collector o n behalf of the Govern me nt to the owner of the<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
    property for his accepta nce, the m aking of award as properly u n derstood
\n    m ust involve the co m m u nication of the offer to the party concerned.\n<\/p>\n
    Conseque ntly, the Apex Court in paragrap h 5 held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “Therefore, if the award m a de by the Collector is in
\n              law n o m ore tha n an offer m a de o n behalf of the
\n              Govern me nt to the owner of the pro perty the n the<\/p>\n
              m aking of the award as pro perly u n derstood m ust
\n              involve the co m m u nication of the offer       to          the
\n              party concerned.      That is the n or mal require me nt<\/p>\n
              u n der the co ntract law an d its ap plicability to cases of<\/p>\n
              excluded.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              award m a de u n der the Act can not b e reaso nably
\n                            Thus considered the date of the award
\n              ca n not be deter mined solely by reference to the time<\/p>\n
              when the award         is signed by the Collector or
\n              delivered by hi m in his office; it m ust involve the
\n              consideration of the q uestion as to when it was<\/p>\n
              known to the p arty concerned either actually or<\/p>\n
              constructively. If that be the true position the n the
\n              literal an d m ec ha nical construction of the words “the
\n              date of the award” occurring in the relevant section<\/p>\n
              would n ot be ap propriate.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          In paragrap h 6 of the above judgment, the Apex Court has further<\/p>\n
    held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “6.      There is yet another point which leads to the
\n              sa me co nclusion.      If the award is treated as an
\n              ad ministrative decision taken by the Collector in the
\n              m atter of the valuation of the property sought to be<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
      acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately
\n      affects the rights of the owner of the pro perty a n d in<\/p>\n
      that sense, like all decisions which affect perso ns, it is
\n      essentially fair an d just that the said decision should<\/p>\n
      be co m m u nicated to the said p arty. The knowledge
\n      of the party affected by such a decision, either actual
\n      or constructive, is a n essential ele me nt which m ust<\/p>\n
      be satisfied before the decision can be brought into
\n      force.     Thus considered the m aking of the award
\n      can not consist m erely in the p hysical act of writing<\/p>\n
      the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of<\/p>\n
      the Collector, it m ust involve the co m m u nication of
\n      the said award to the party concerned either actually
\n      or constructively. If the award is pro nou nced in the<\/p>\n
      prese nce of the party whose rights are affected by it it
\n      can be said to be m a de whe n pro nou nced. If the date
\n      for      the   pro nou nce me nt   of      the      award        is<\/p>\n
      co m m u nicated to the party an d it is accordingly<\/p>\n
      pro no u nced o n the date previously a n no u nced the
\n      award is said to be co m m u nicated to the said party
\n      even if the said party is n ot actually present o n the<\/p>\n
      date of its pro nou nce me nt.      Similarly if without
\n      n otice of the date of its pro nou nce me nt, a n d award is
\n      pro no u nced an d a party is not present the award can<\/p>\n
      be said to be m a de when it is co m m u nicated to the
\n      party later. The knowledge of the party affected by
\n      the award, either actually or co nstructive, being a n
\n      essential require me nt of fairplay an d n atural justice
\n      the expression “the date of the award” used in the<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
              proviso m ust m ea n the date when the award is either
\n              co m m u nicated to the party or is known by him either<\/p>\n
              actually or constructively. In our opinio n, therefore,
\n              it would be reasonable to construe the words “fro m<\/p>\n
              the date of the Collector’s award” used in the proviso
\n              to Section 18 in a literal or m ec ha nical way.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The law laid down by the Apex Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj
\n    Singh case, supra, has recently been followed in Purshotta m b hai
\n    Magan b hai Patel an d Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2005), 7<\/p>\n
    Supre me Court Cases 431.\n<\/p>\n
    8.    In the present case, the Petitioners were not before the Collector<\/p>\n
    whe n the award was m ad e o n 2n d April, 2004. Conseque ntly, knowledge
\n    of m aking of the award can be attributed to the Petitioners only whe n
\n    the award ca me to co m m u nicated either actually or constructively<\/p>\n
    following the law laid dow n by the Apex Court. Even, if the n otice u n der<\/p>\n
    section 12 (2) is taken as the date o n which such knowledge can be
\n    imp uted, the period of six weeks u n der clause (b) of the proviso of
\n    section 18 sub-section(2) would begin to ru n with effect from the date<\/p>\n
    of service of that notice. The reference u n d er section 18 was m a de on
\n    23rd Dece m ber, 2004 i.e. within the period of six weeks from the date of
\n    receipt of notice u n der section 12(2). In the circu msta nces, Responde nt<\/p>\n
    No.2 co m mitted a n error in rejecting the Petitioners’ reference on the
\n    grou n d that the sa me is barred by limitation by co m p uting the period of
\n    six m o nths from the date of declaration of the award by the Collector.
\n    The m ere signing of the award or filing of the award in the Office of the
\n    Collector ca n not be regarded as date of the award of the Collector for<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                           14<\/span><\/p>\n
    the p ur pose of section 18, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court.
\n    The Respo n de nt No.2 therefore, co m mitted a n error in rejecting the<\/p>\n
    ap plication o n that grou n d.\n<\/p>\n
    9.    The n ext groun d o n which the Petitioners’ reference was rejected
\n    is that the Petitioners’ accepted the a mo u nt of co m pe nsation without
\n    any protest. This grou nd is also without a ny m erit, in view of the Apex<\/p>\n
    Court judgme nt in Ajit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Pu njab reported in (1994)
\n    4 Supre me Court Cases 67. The Apex Court in paragrap h 5 of the said
\n    judgme nt held that the filing of ap plication for reference u n der section<\/p>\n
    18 would itself m a nifest the Appellant’s inte ntion a n d therefore, the<\/p>\n
    protest against the award of the Collector was implied notwithstanding
\n    the acceptance of co m pe nsation. Thus, the reference could n ot have
\n    bee n rejected on the grou nd that the a mo u nt of co m pe nsation was not<\/p>\n
    accepted u n der protest.\n<\/p>\n
    10.   The last grou n d on which the Petitioners’ reference was rejected is<\/p>\n
    that the Petitioners did n ot file any objection \/reply to section 9 (3) (4)
\n    n otice, is misconceived in view of the a me n d me nt to section 25 in the
\n    year 1984.\n<\/p>\n
          Prior to 1984, section 25(1) read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “25. Rules as to a mo u nt of co mp e nsation:\n<\/p>\n
          (i) When the ap plicant has m a de a claim to co mp e nsation,
\n              p ursua nt to any n otice given u n der section 9, the a mo u nt
\n              awarded to hi m by the Court shall n ot exceed the a mo u nt
\n              so claimed or be less tha n the a mou nt awarded by the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
              Collector u n der section 11.”\n<\/p>\n
    11.   By virtue of a me n d me nt by Act 68        of 1984, section 25 was
\n    a me n ded a n d substituted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “Section 25 : The a mou nt of co m pe nsation awarded by the
\n          Court shall not be less tha n the a mo u nt awarded by the<\/p>\n
          Collector u n der section 11.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Thus, the restriction that the a mou nt of co m pe nsation awarded<\/p>\n
    by the Court, shall n ot exceed the a mo u nt claimed u n der section 9 (3)
\n    (4), is re moved.\n<\/p>\n
                           Un der substituted section 25, the a mo u nt of
\n    co m pe nsation awarded by the Court shall not be less tha n the a mou nt
\n    awarded by the Collector u n der section 11. Reading of u na me n ded and<\/p>\n
    substituted section 25 together         m akes it clear that the a mo u nt of
\n    co m pe nsation awarded by the Court does n ot depe n d u po n claim to
\n    co m pe nsation p ursua nt to any notice u n der section 9 (3) (4). It appears<\/p>\n
    that the objection regarding n o n-filing of the claim in p ursuance of<\/p>\n
    section 9 (3) (4) notice was raised relying u po n the u na me n de d section
\n    25 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since, this section is substituted by
\n    Amend me nt Act 68 of 1984, the Petitioners’ ap plication could not have<\/p>\n
    bee n rejected o n the grou n d of no n-filing of the claim in p ursua nt to
\n    Section 9 notice.\n<\/p>\n
    12.   In the facts a nd circu msta nces m e ntioned above, all the Revision
\n    Applications succeeds.       The order imp ugned in the revisions is
\n    accordingly, q uashed an d set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    13.   The Respo n de nt No.2 shall verify the service of n otice u n der<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                          16<\/span><\/p>\n
    section 12(2) o n the respective Petitioners an d if the reference is m a de
\n    within the period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice, the n<\/p>\n
    he shall entertain the reference an d take further ap propriate action in
\n    accordance with the law.\n<\/p>\n
    14.   Rule is m a de absolute accordingly in all the above Revision
\n    Applications with n o order as to cost.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (R.V.MORE, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:12 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 28 April, 2009 Bench: R. V. More 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.631 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.632 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION […]<\/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-25162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Unknown on 28 April, 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-unknown-on-28-april-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 Unknown on 28 April, 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-unknown-on-28-april-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=\"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-22T11:30:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 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-unknown-on-28-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 28 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-22T11:30:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3256,\"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-unknown-on-28-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Unknown on 28 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-22T11:30:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-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 Unknown on 28 April, 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 Unknown on 28 April, 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-unknown-on-28-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Unknown on 28 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-22T11:30:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Unknown on 28 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-22T11:30:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009"},"wordCount":3256,"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-unknown-on-28-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009","name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Unknown on 28 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-22T11:30:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-unknown-on-28-april-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 Unknown on 28 April, 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\/25162","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=25162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}