{"id":75216,"date":"2001-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001"},"modified":"2016-02-28T13:09:57","modified_gmt":"2016-02-28T07:39:57","slug":"sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: S N Variava<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T.Thomas, S.N.Variava<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 7889  of  2001\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil)\t17502\t of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS...\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/11\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.Thomas, S.N.Variava\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
S. N. VARIAVA, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tHeard parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Appeal is against a Judgment dated 24th August, 2001 by which
\nthe Writ Petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed.
\n\tBriefly stated the facts are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
The 3rd Respondent required certain lands in Aurangabad city. Thus land
\nacquisition proceedings were started. A Notification under Section 4(1) of
\nthe Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 21st
\nJanuary, 1986.\t It had earlier been published in local newspapers on 3rd
\nNovember, 1985 and 6th November, 1985.\t The local publication in the
\nvillage took place on 30th January, 1986.   The declaration under Section 6
\nwas issued on 29th January, 1987.  This declaration was published in the
\nlocal newspaper on 30th January, 1987.\tIt was then  published in the Official
\nGazette on 19th March, 1987 and in the concerned locality  on 24th April,
\n1987.\t At this stage it must be mentioned that notice under Section 9 was
\nreceived by the Appellant on 13th March, 1989.\tOn 14th March, 1989 the
\nAppellant filed his reply opposing the acquisition.  Respondent No. 2 passed
\nthe final award on 21st April, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 16th March, 1989 the Appellant filed this Petition in the High
\nCourt of Bombay at Aurangabad.\t On 20th March, 1989 he obtained an ad-
\ninterim stay preventing the Government from taking possession.\t However,
\nthis Writ Petition ultimately came to be dismissed by the impugned Order.
\n\tBefore us only one point has been urged.  It has been submitted that
\nthe Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had not been
\npublished within a period of one year from the last date of publication of the
\nNotification under Section 4.  It is submitted that for this reason the
\nacquisition proceedings are vitiated and should be set aside.
\nAt this stage it would be appropriate to set out Sections 4(1), 6 and
\n11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.  These Sections read as follows:
\n“4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of
\nofficers thereupon. – (1) Whenever it appears to the
\nappropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is
\nlikely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company a
\nnotification to that effect shall be published in the Official
\nGazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality
\nof which at least one shall be in the regional language] and the
\nCollector shall cause public notice of the substance of such
\nnotification to be given at convenient places in the said locality
\n[the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such
\npublic notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of
\npublication of the notification].\n<\/p>\n
\t.\n<\/p>\n
6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. –
\n(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the
\nAppropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report,
\nif any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2), that any
\nparticular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company,
\na declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a
\nSecretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised
\nto certify its orders and different declarations may be made from
\ntime to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered
\nby the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1),
\nirrespective of whether one report or different reports has or
\nhave been made (wherever required) under section 5-A, sub-
\nsection (2):\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that no declaration in respect of any particular
\nland covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1),-\n<\/p>\n
(i) published after the commencement of the Land
\nAcquisition (Amendment and Validation)
\nOrdinance, 1967 but before the commencement of
\nthe Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984
\nshall be made after the expiry of three years from
\nthe date of the publication of the notification; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land
\nAcquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be
\nmade after the expiry of one year from the date of
\nthe publication of the notification:\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that no such declaration shall be made
\nunless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to
\nbe paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public
\nrevenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official
\nGazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality
\nin which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the
\nregional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of
\nthe substance of such declaration to be given at convenient
\nplaces in the said locality (the last of the date of such
\npublication and the giving of such public notice, being
\nhereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the
\ndeclaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other
\nterritorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for
\nwhich it is needed, its approximate area, and where a plan shall
\nhave been made of the land, the place where such plan may be
\ninspected.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that
\nthe land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the
\ncase may be; and, after making such declaration the
\nAppropriate Government may acquire the land in a manner
\nhereinafter appearing.\n<\/p>\n
11A.  Period within which an award shall be made. – (1) The
\nCollector shall make an award under section 11 within a period
\nof two years from the date of the publication of the declaration
\nand if no award is made within that period, the entire
\nproceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that in a case where the said declaration has
\nbeen published before the commencement of the Land
\nAcquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made
\nwithin a period of two years from such commencement.”\n<\/p>\n
\t       (emphasis supplied)
\nThus under Section 4 a notification has to be published in the manner laid
\ndown therein.\tAs against this, under Section 6 a declaration has to be first
\nmade and that declaration is then to be published in the manner provided in
\nSection 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.  Also the first proviso to Section
\n6(1) lays down a time limit within which declaration has to  be made. Very
\nsignificantly it does not lay down a time limit within which publication of
\nthe declaration is to be made. Significantly the first proviso does not lay
\ndown that publication cannot take place after the period prescribed therein.
\nAs the first proviso to Section 6(1) only provides a time limit for a
\ndeclaration and not for publication, it has been incorporated in section (1) of
\nSection 6.   It is for this reason that the legislature has not put this proviso
\nafter sub-section (2) of Section 6.\n<\/p>\n
It is admitted that the last publication of the notification under Section
\n4 was on 30th January, 1986.   The declaration under Section 6 was
\nadmittedly made on 29th January, 1987.\tIf this date is taken into
\nconsideration then the declaration is within a period of one year from the last
\ndate of publication of the notification under Section 4.  However, it is
\nsubmitted that under Section 6(2) every declaration has to be published in
\nthe Official Gazette, in two daily  newspapers circulating in the locality in
\nwhich the land is situated and also at convenient places in the locality.   It is
\nsubmitted that a declaration under Section 6 becomes effective only after it
\nhas been published.  It is submitted that, therefore, the date of declaration
\nnecessarily has to be the date when it was published in the Official Gazette
\nand in the manner provided in Section 6(2).  It is submitted that as the
\ndeclaration was published in the Official Gazette on 19th March, 1987 and in
\nthe village on 24th April, 1987 the declaration has been made after the expiry
\nof one year from the last date of publication of the notification under Section\n<\/p>\n
4.
\n\tIn support of this submission reliance was placed upon the case of
\nEugenio Misquita v. Sate of Goa<\/a> reported in (1997) 8 SCC 47.   In this case
\nit was inter alia held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“7. It is now well settled that the last of the dates in the series of
\nthe publications made under Section 4(1) of the Act is the
\nrelevant date to reckon the starting point of limitation for the
\npurpose of proviso to Section 6(1)(ii).\t Now, the question is
\nwhich is the relevant date to reckon the last date for the purpose
\nof clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 6(1).  In other
\nwords, whether the modes of publication prescribed under
\nSection 6(2) obviously for the purpose of reckoning limitation
\nunder Section 11-A of the Act have any part to play in the
\nmatter of computing the period prescribed under clause (ii) of
\nthe first proviso to Section 6(1).\n<\/p>\n
\txxx\t\t\txxx\t\t\txxx<\/p>\n
\txxx\t\t\txxx\t\t\txxx<\/p>\n
17. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, we have no
\nhesitation to hold that the declaration published under Section 6
\nof the Act was well within one year and the challenge to the
\nsame has been rightly rejected by the High Court.  However,
\nthe view taken in the judgment of the High Court under appeal
\nthat the relevant date for reckoning the period of limitation will
\nbe the date of making of the declaration under Section 6, may
\nnot be correct.\t As held in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity case
\n[(1995) 2 SCC 497] mere making of declaration is not enough.
\nThe making of declaration under Section 6 is complete for the
\npurpose of clauses (i) and (ii) of the first proviso to Section 6(1)
\nwhen it is published in the Official Gazette.”\n<\/p>\n
Relying heavily on the above observations it has been submitted that this
\nCourt has already held that the relevant date for reckoning of limitation is
\nnot the date of making of the declaration under Section 6.  It is submitted
\nthat this Court has held that a declaration under Section 6 is complete only
\nwhen it is published in the Official Gazette.\n<\/p>\n
At first blush it does appear that the above observations support the
\nAppellant. If that were so then this question would have had to be referred to
\na larger bench as such a finding would be against the clear wording of
\nSection 6 which admits of no ambiguity.\n<\/p>\n
However, in our view, in Eugenio Misquita’s case (supra) this Court is
\nnot holding that a declaration under Section 6 is not within time provided it
\nis published at a later date. This question has been left open.\t  This is clear
\nfrom the observations in para 17 which read as follows:
\n” However, the view taken in the judgment of the High Court
\nunder appeal that the relevant date for reckoning the period of
\nlimitation will be the date of making of the declaration under
\nSection 6, may not be correct.”\n<\/p>\n
The words “may not be correct” clearly show that the question is left open.
\nIn our view the wordings of Sections 4, 6 & 11-A leave no room for
\ndoubt that the Land Acquisition Act made a distinction between a
\n“declaration” and “publication”. To be noted that under Section 4 the
\nnotification has to be published.   Again under Section 11-A the period of
\ntwo years has to be commuted from the date of  “publication of the
\ndeclaration”.\tAs distinct from this under the first proviso to Section 6(1) a
\n“declaration” cannot be made after the expiry of one year from the date of
\n“publication of the notification under Section 4”.  The words published in
\nclauses (i) and (ii) of the first proviso to Section 6(1) refer to the publication
\nof notification under Section 4. A plain reading of Section 6 shows that a
\ndistinction is made between a “declaration” and a “publication”.     Viewed
\nfrom this angle the wordings of the first proviso to Section 6(1) become
\nimportant.   The proviso lays down that “no declaration (under Section 6)
\nshall be made after expiry of three years [under clause (i)] where the
\nnotification under Section 4 is published before the commencement of the
\nLand Acquisition Act, 1984 and after expiry of one year [under clause (ii)]
\nwhere notification under Section 4 was published after commencement of
\nLand Acquisition Act, 1984.   Thus the proviso clearly talks of “Publication”
\nin respect of notification under Section 4 and then provide a time for
\n“making of declaration” under Section 6.   The legislature is purposely
\nomitting to use the words “Publication of declaration” in the proviso to
\nSection 6.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn our view, it is clear that the “declaration must be made” within one
\nyear from the date of “last publication of the Notification” under Section 4.
\nThereafter the publication under Section 6(2) may take place at a later date
\nas it is merely a ministerial act.\n<\/p>\n
Even if Eugenio Misquittas case was laying down what is canvassed
\nby counsel the\tAppellant cannot succeed.   To be noted that the paras 8 and
\n9 of that Judgment read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“8. According to the learned counsel, the limitation prescribed
\nunder clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 6(1) has to be
\nconsidered with reference to the different dates\/modes of
\npublication prescribed under Section 6(2) of the Act.  In support
\nof this submission, learned counsel refers to the judgments of
\nthis Court rendered on Section 4(1) of the Act holding that the
\nlast of the dates of such publication in the series is the relevant
\ndate for computing the period of limitation under clause (ii) of
\nthe first proviso to Section 6(1).\n<\/p>\n
9.  Let us examine whether the learned counsel is right in his
\nsubmission.  As seen from the above extracts of relevant
\nprovisions, while Section 4(1) commands publication of
\nnotification under that section, Section 6 speaks of the
\ndeclaration being made to the effect that any particular land is
\nneeded for public purpose or for a company.  There are judicial
\ndecisions that have interpreted the word “made” to mean
\n“published” for the reasons stated in those decisions.
\nTherefore, strictly speaking, but for those judicial decisions the
\ndate of making of the declaration under Section 6(1) will be the
\nrelevant date for reckoning the period of limitation.  However,
\nin the interest of the general public, the courts have taken the
\nview that the declaration made will stand accomplished only
\nwhen it is published.\tThis publication has, therefore,
\nnothing to do with the publication referred to in Section
\n6(2) of the Act which is for a different purpose, inter alia,
\nfor reckoning the limitation prescribed under Section 11-A
\nof the Act.   This construction is supported by the language
\nemployed in Section 6(2) of the Act.  In particular, the word
\n“hereinafter” used in Section 6(2) will amply prove that the
\nlast of the series of the publication referred to under Section
\n6(2) is relevant for the purposes coming thereafter, namely,
\nfor making award under Section 11-A.  The language
\nemployed in second proviso to Section 6(1) also supports this
\nconstruction.  Therefore, the contention of learned counsel
\ncannot be accepted.” (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Thus a contention similar to the one made here had been rejected.
\nLearned Judges then observed in para 16 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
16. .that for the purpose of calculating the limitation
\nprescribed under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 6(1),
\nit is not the last of the publications in the series that should be
\ntaken into account, but the publication that was made in the first
\ninstance under the Section .\n<\/p>\n
Thus a detailed reading of the authority makes it clear that the last
\ndate under Section 6(2) is only for purposes of computing limitation under
\nSection 11-A.  Publications under Section 6(2) are ministerial acts and
\nprocedural in nature.  In any case, in this case the date of first publication of
\ndeclaration  is 30th January, 1987.  This is also within one year of last date of
\nnotification under Section 4.  The High Court was thus right in holding that
\nthe proceedings were not vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, see no substance in the appeal.\tWe see no infirmity in
\nthe impugned Judgment. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.\t  There
\nwill be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001 Author: S N Variava Bench: K.T.Thomas, S.N.Variava CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7889 of 2001 Special Leave Petition (civil) 17502 of 2001 PETITIONER: SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS… DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/11\/2001 BENCH: K.T.Thomas, […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001 - 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\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-28T07:39:57+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-28T07:39:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2609,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001\",\"name\":\"Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-28T07:39:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001 - 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\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-28T07:39:57+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-28T07:39:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001"},"wordCount":2609,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001","name":"Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-28T07:39:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sriniwas-ramnath-khatod-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-19-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 2001"}]},{"@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\/75216","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=75216"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75216\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}