Bombay High Court
Ashalata Babasaheb Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 December, 2008
Author: S.R. Dongaonkar
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, S.R. Dongaonkar
1
FIRST APPEAL NO.605 OF 1997
Date of decision: 4th December, 2008.
For approval and signature.
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE NARESH H. PATIL.
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.R. DONGAONKAR.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers }
may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } Yes/No
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see
the fair copy of the judgment? } No
4.
Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
}
}
of the Constitution of India, 1950 or }
any Order made thereunder? } No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the }
Civil Judges? } No
6. Whether the case involves an important }
question of law and whether a copy of }
the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, }
Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No
[ S.U.Tupe ]
Personal Assistant to
the Honourable Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 :::
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.605 OF 1997
Shri. Babasaheb s/o Dashrathrao Jadhav,
Age: 48 years, Occ: Agril., & Advocate,
R/o. Latur. (Died),
His L.Rs.
1. Ashalata Babasaheb Jadhav,
Age: 52 years,
2. Manisha Kakasaheb Bharate,
Age: 25 years,
3. Madhavi Babasaheb Jadhav,
Age: 20 years,
4. Megha Babasaheb Jadhav,
Age: 16 years,
5. Shilpa Babasaheb Jadhav,
Age: 14 years,
All R/o. Ramnagar,
Tal. & District Latur.
.... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector, Latur.
.... RESPONDENT
...
Shri.J.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for appellant.
Smt. B.R. Khekale, A.G.P. for respondent-State.
...
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, AND
S.R. DONGAONKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 20/11/2008
PRONOUNCED ON: 04/12/2008
JUDGMENT:( PER : S.R. DONGAONKAR, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 2 . The appellant has preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment and award in L.A.R. No. 175/1994 decided by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur on 04-05-1996 by which, in Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act preferred by the appellant, he awarded compensation of Rs.9,95,709/- alongwith interest and other reliefs, for acquired land of the appellant from Survey No.46/A-1 of village Kanheri, Tq. Latur.
2. Facts are thus :
. Field Survey No.46/A-1 of village Kanheri, Tq. Latur, was owned by the appellant. As per notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the said land was acquired for the ring road in Latur. The relevant notification was issued on 10-05-1990. It is alleged that though the notification was issued in the year 1990, the possession of the same was already taken on 02-06-1985. The award was declared in 1993.
It is alleged that potential of the acquired land was obvious and it is recorded in the award.
According to claimant, same was situated adjacent to Solapur - Nagpur State Highway. There was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 3 market yard at some distance from the same, so also cattle bazaar, vegetable market, oil industry etc., apart from the V.I.P. Rest House, and residential colonies. It is alleged that despite this potential and the fact that Latur was developing city and market value of the land was Rs.10,000/- per sq. meter, the S.L.A.O. granted compensation at the rate of Rs.663/- per sq. meter which was quite inadequate. As such, he preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking enhancement in compensation.
3. During the Reference proceedings, he led evidence of C.W.1 Surendra Bhagwat Kotalwar, C.A., to prove that he had purchased a plot for Rs.10,78,560/- on 08-07-1988 and it is a comparable sale. He also led evidence of C.W. 2 Vithal Sitaram Pawar, Stamp Vendor on the point that one Chandrakant Chaunda sold his plot to one Hanmant Patil on 11-09-1989 for Rs. 64,000/-, which was admeasuring 20 x 20 ft., According to the appellant, this is also a comparable sale. He also led his own evidence as C.W. 3 on the issues involved in the Reference. He also relied on the award Exhibit 39 by which the compensation was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 4 granted at the rate of Rs.1400/- per sq. meter though in the evidence, he stated that the compensation was granted at the rate of Rs.1112/-
per sq. meter. The appellant - claimant had thus relied on the evidence of alleged comparable sale instances which are produced at Exhibit Nos. 47, 48 and 49 through these witnesses. Besides, he relied on Exhibit 39 award claiming that the said award was for the land acquired for the same purpose i.e. for ring road, at the same time, though his land was acquired by other notification under Section 4.
4. The learned Reference Judge, allowed the Reference partly. He awarded compensation to the appellant as stated above.
5. This judgment in Reference is challenged by the appellant in this appeal.
6. It is not out of place here to state that the impugned judgment was also challenged by the respondent. However, that first appeal was quite delayed, so the respondent had preferred C.A. No. 7400/2004 for claiming condonation of delay in filing that appeal which was of about 2658 days.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 5The said application was however rejected by this Court and therefore, said appeal was not heard on merits. It may be stated that in delay condonation application, the present appellants who are L.Rs. of original claimant were heard.
This Court made some observations on the merits of the judgment in that order. What is its effect, we will indicate later. Suffice it to say that though that appeal and this appeal being counter appeal, were required to be heard at the same time, both the parties, perhaps, did not bring the fact that this appeal was pending, to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of application for delay condonation. Consequently, the appeal filed by the respondent was disposed of separately.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant has proved the relevant sale deeds Exhibits 47, 48 and 49. They are of the relevant period and of the plots which are in the vicinity of the land which is the subject matter of the acquisition in the Reference. According to him, these are comparable sales, as such, the rates therein should have been considered by the learned Reference Judge as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 6 indicative of market price for determination of the compensation in the instant Reference.
Therefore, according to him, the learned Reference Judge has landed into error in determining the compensation at a very low rate in favour of the claimant. He has further submitted that the learned Reference Court has not taken into consideration the fact that claimant had relied on award Exhibit - 39 of the adjacent land which was acquired for the same purpose i.e. ring road. He has tried to make out a case that his land was to be acquired alongwith that land by the same notification. However, this did not happen, as such, this award came to be passed separately though the purpose of both these acquisitions and the village from which both these lands were acquired are the same. He has strongly relied on the decision of this Court in 2007 (5) Mh. L.J. 187 State of Maharashtra vs. Trimbak Joma Thakur, deceased through his legal representatives Dashrath Trimbak Thakur and others, to contend that the potential of the land has to be the guiding factor for determining the market value of the land. When the lands are similarly situated, the market price or the awards in respect of other land would be indicative factor for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 7 determination of market price of the acquired land. According to him, no discrimination in the award of compensation ( rates of the land ) could be permissible when the lands acquired are from the same village for the same purpose and at the same time, more particularly market price of this land should be the same as it is in the case of award Exhibit 39. According to him, the market price of the land acquired in Reference of the claimant should be treated as Rs. 1400/- per sq. meter. Therefore, he submitted that this appeal should be allowed. As regards, order on application for delay condonation of the respondent and its appeal, he submitted that observations of this Court therein would not have any effect on this appeal. According to him, though appeal of the respondent is dismissed when this appeal of the appellant was pending, it would not affect the merits of this appeal and the instant appeal can be decided on merits by this Court.
8. As against this, learned A.G.P. for respondent has contended that the judgment of the Reference Judge impugned in this appeal is correct. Sale instances relied by the claimant ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 8 are not comparable. The acquired land is not the part of the Municipal Council area of Latur and the same was not in the vicinity of then Municipal area. It is also submitted that the evidence of the claimant himself in cross examination shows that the acquired land was away from the commercial area at the time of acquisition. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the judgment impugned is correct, as regards market value of the land and therefore, it is not liable to be set aside.
9. At this stage, it is necessary to see the observations of this court, in the order dated 13-12-2006 by which the application for condonation of delay of the respondents was rejected. (Coram N.V. Dabholkar, and P.R. Borkar, JJ.). The same are thus:
Para (4) : The delay in filing appeal is enormous. In fact, in the light of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others (AIR 1987, SC, 1353), 1353) we have been taking a liberal view while condoning the delay in filing appeals of the State against Land Acquisition References. We have been following two parameters for the purpose.
Firstly, that by delayed appeal State does not benefit, which is required to pay interest at 15 per cent per annum for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 9 amount awarded by way of compensation. Secondly, we had been liberal in condoning the delay where enhancement by the Reference Court is enormous and, therefore, to some extent also, we feel second examination to be necessary.
Para (5) : So far as present matter is concerned, we do not think that matter needs any such parameters.
Para (6) : Advocate Shri. Bhapkar has taken us through contents in the judgment of the Reference Court and more particularly those from paragraph No. 13. It is evident that learned Judge has rejected all the sale instances brought on record by the claimant for the purpose of comparison and enhancement of compensation in the light of the rates at which land was sold in those sale instances. Paragraph No.13 is concluded by the Judge as under :
" So, according to me, it is not just and proper to determine the price of the claimant's land on the basis of the sale instances produced by him. If we peruse the contents of the Award, I find no reason to interfere in the compensation determined by the L.A.O. to the claimant's acquired land @ Rs.1040/- per sq. mtr., and hence, I have replied issue Nos. 1 and 2 accordingly".
From the contents quoted hereinabove, it is evident that the rate of market price as awarded by S.L.A.O. is confirmed by the Reference Court. Rate of the market price offered by S.L.A.O. is an offer by the State and not the market price adjudicated by a judicial forum and, therefore, State cannot challenge the said rate which was offered by its own officer.
Para (7) : Our attention was drawn by Shri. Bhapkar to paragraph No. 16 of the judgment in order to demonstrate us as to why compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer, Rs.12,17,931/-, is increased to Rs. 22,13,640/- by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 10 Reference Court. The Reference Court has taken a note of the fact that S.L.A.O. had not granted benefits under Section 23(1A) of the Act i.e. component of 12 per cent per annum on the market value, for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or date of taking possession. This amount was calculable for the period 02-06-1985 to 25-05-1993 i.e. 95 months and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 9,78,120/- becomes payable to the claimants, which the Reference Court has awarded. We are, therefore, unable to find that this is a case wherein Reference Court has granted exorbitant enhancement and that is not available as a ground for the State to pray that the matter needs to be examined once again.
Nos.
Para (8) : Having gone through paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Civil Application and more particularly Paragraph No. 4, we do not think those grounds are available to the State in this particular matter, when we convinced that the Reference Court did not enhance the market price but only granted statutory benefits under Section 23(1A) of the Act which were not allowed by the S.L.A.O.
10. Consequently, this court did not condone the delay and Civil Application was dismissed.
11. It thus, appears that at that time Counsel for the appellant was heard. It is specifically observed that the learned Judge had rejected all sale instances brought on record by the claimant for the purpose of comparison and enhancement of compensation in the light of rates at which the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 11 land was sold in those sale instances. In Para.
7 it is observed that " We are, therefore, unable to find that this a case wherein Reference Court has granted exorbitant enhancement and that is not available as ground for the State to pray that the matter needs to be examined once again."
12. Thus, it is obvious that though this appeal was pending at the time when that delay condonation application was considered by this Court, the appellant failed to contend that his appeal was pending and sale instances relied by him should be considered by this court for enhancement of compensation in his appeal.
Needless to say that in such cases, both the cross appeals i.e. one filed by the claimant and other filed by the respondent - State or Acquiring Body have to be heard and decided together obviously, to avoid conflicting judgments. The duty is cast on the parties, more particularly on their Counsel, to inform the court regarding pendency of appeals or the proceedings which are filed and pending or for that matter even disposed of arising out of the same judgments or proceedings.
This aspect need not be over-emphasized, but the fact remains that in the case at hand, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 12 appellant did not raise issue of relying his sale deeds for determination of the compensation afresh, by answering the same in his favour, for which this appeal was pending. In our opinion therefore, it needs to be held that the appellant should not be permitted to re-agitate this matter again in this appeal. It is rather difficult to hold that the appellant should be allowed now to contend that the impugned judgment is incorrect because his sale instances were not properly considered, when he did not make this submission, when he had first opportunity to agitate the matter. We would, however, not dismiss the appeal on this ground alone, just to avoid injustice to the claimants - appellant, for the party should not suffer for the lapse on the part of the Counsel, to take appropriate steps at the appropriate time, as an exceptional matter.
13. For appreciation of the relevant contentions of the parties, it is necessary to bear in mind that the witnesses examined by the claimant are not the rustic villagers, whose evidence can be appreciated with some liberal attitude. C.W.1 Surendra Kotalwar is C.A. C.W. 2 Vithal Pawar is Stamp Vendor. C.W. 3 claimant ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 13 Babasaheb Jadhav himself is an Advocate.
Therefore, their admissions in cross examination, could be quite material to devalue their evidence.
How, we would indicate at the appropriate places.
14. C.W. 1 Kotalwar has purchased the said plot under sale deed by way of auction. It is difficult to hold that it is indicative of market price as in auction normally the prices are escalated because of the competition in bids. In cross examination, ig this witness has stated that his bid was highest bid and hence that plot was allotted to him. In further cross examination, he stated that at the time of purchase of that plot, market yard was already established there. There were about 400 to 500 shops in market yard since 1988. Latur Market Committee is prominent in Maharashtra. What is important to note is that he stated, Kava road is to the western side of plot purchased by him and there were shops to both the sides of the road prior to the purchase of his plot. There was Jaggery market at the distance of 200 ft. from his plot. He further stated that there is Majage nagar, Manthale Nagar to the southern side of his plot which was developed and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 14 ring road is at the distance of about 1/2 to 3/4th km. from his plot on southern side. He further stated that on one side, there is Basaveshwar statue near ring road and claimant's land is on the western side of that statue. Not this enough, he further admitted that plot purchased by him is from the business locality. It goes without saying that his plot was from business locality and commercial side, as such, he would have purchased it at a rate which was more than what was the actual market price. In our opinion, that cannot be said ig to be a comparable sale for determing the market value of acquired land.
15. Turning to the evidence of C.W.2 Pawar, it would be seen that he is not a party to the sale deed which he wanted to prove. He has specifically stated in examination in chief itself that he knew the claimant Babasaheb Jadhav and his acquired land is situated at the distance of 1 km.
from the plot sold by Chaunda. In cross examination, he stated that the plot sold by Chaunda is on Latur Ausa Highway. It is true that Latur Ausa road is fully developed from Shivaji Chowk to Rajiv Gandhi statue and it is residential area and there are all the facilities on the road.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 15The plots adjoining to the road fetch more prices than the plots situated at interior side. What is important, is, he further stated that the facilities available to the plot sold by Chaunda are not available to the acquired land. He further admitted that the acquired land has got importance due to construction of ring road only.
He further admitted that "it is true that in the
year 1990, the rates of the plot sold by Chaunda
were not comparable with the acquired lands." He
has further stated that he knew claimant since 10
to 12 years.
His relations with him are good and on that day, he had not received summons from the court and he attended the court as per the say of the claimant. He is Stamp Vendor and the claimant is an Advocate. As such, his evidence appears to be of little help to the claimant.
16. Turning to the evidence of the claimant himself, in his evidence he has deposed about potential of acquired land. He has stated that the L.A.O. has granted compensation @ Rs.10.40 per sq. ft. He claimed compensation @ Rs.2000/-
per sq. ft. It is necessary to evaluate his evidence vis a vis his cross examination. He had produced the copy of the map of Municipal limits ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 16 at Exhibit 40. As seen from the map, acquired land is not shown within the Municipal limits. He further stated that except that map, he has not produced any other map showing Municipal limit.
He has not produced any map showing that acquired land was within municipal limits at the relevant time. Needless to say that vis a vis this evidence, the certificate issued by the Chief Officer in his favour that the acquired land was within the Municipal limits in the year 1990 has a little value. Admittedly, he has got converted his land into ig N.A. after publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is difficult to say that this would attract favourable inference to the claimant. He has stated that he did not produce the sale instances from the adjacent land and it is true that he had produced those sale instances as they are of higher side. He has admitted that price of the plot goes on decreasing when one proceeds from Rajiv Gandhi statue towards eastern side by ring road. In further cross examination, he stated that Survey No.33 and 34 are adjacent to his acquired land and plots from those lands are sold. The acquired lands from Survey Nos. 33 and 34 are the same. The plot Survey No. 38 might ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 17 have been sold @ Rs.538/- per sq. meter. He admitted that L.A.O. had determined the price of acquired land on the basis of plot Survey No. 33/B and 34. This is a circumstance which speaks against the claim of the claimant. In further cross examination, he admitted that he did not know whether there are any sale instances from Kanheri. He has added that as per map produced by him, Kanheri is not within Municipal limit of Latur. He did not produce his claim statement before the Reference court.
17. As regards Exhibit 47 sale deed, suffice it to say that the sale was in respect of the small plot and it was from Latur Municipal area of Bhandegalli which had good boundaries including a shop in the vicinity and as such, the same is not comparable. All this will indicate that the sale instances relied by the claimant are of little value to enable the court to draw the inference that those are of comparable sales as indicative of market price of the acquired land.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in 2007 (5) Mh. L.J. 187 State of Maharashtra vs. Trimbak ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 18 Joma Thakur deceased through his legal representatives Dashrath Trimbak Thakur and others, particularly Para. Nos. 7 and 10 of the judgment, which read thus:
Para. 7 : It is an undisputed case that there are no sale instances vide which the freehold rights have been transferred between the private parties and for that matter, even between the State, its Corporations, on the one hand and private individuals or Companies, on the other. The learned counsel appearing for the State, as already noticed, had argued that the claimants have failed to produce some record of sale instances, and they have failed to discharge the onus placed upon them for determination of a fair market value of the land at the time of acquisition; and as such their claim should be dismissed. This argument appears to be some what strange, but it is examined in its proper perceptive, and has to be noticed only to be rejected. It is a conceded case before us that the lands for the first time were acquired in the year 1970 and the acquisition, of course, was permitted to lapse and fresh Notification was issued in the year 1986. In other words, the lands all throughout this long period, remained the subject matter of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, thus necessarily debarring transfer of lands. The claimants cannot be blamed for not producing on record the sale instances for the relevant period. They have produced their own best evidence which was available to them in the form of lease deeds, vide which CIDCO has transferred the lands of the Companies or individuals for different amounts. They have to be treated as evidence admissible in law and relevant for determining the question in controversy. The potential of the acquired lands is the relevant consideration. The potential has to be determined on the basis ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 19 of factors available and existence as on the date of the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. The further potential of the lands i.e. what the land price would be after a lapse of one year or more, would hardly be relevant consideration. The potential cannot be treated as a mere expectation of future, but should be close to reality at site at the time of acquisition of the lands. The potential itself has to be on the basis of existing evidence which will reflect the potential and scope of development of the area with reference to the surrounding area.
Para. 10 : Location and potential of an acquired land are two features of mode of acquisition which go hand-in-hand. The location of a land is the stepping stone for examining the potential of the land.
If the location of the land is that it is surrounded by developed area and has facilities available and is near to the Highways, its accessibility is easier, then it is said to be a very located land; and if the surrounding areas are already developed and the acquisition of the land is for some purpose, then obviously, it has great potential as well. At the cost of repetition, we may notice that the lands were initially acquired in the year 1970. The said Notification remained in operation till it was permitted to lapse, in view of the amendment in law, and therefore, a fresh Notification was issued. During this period, the areas had developed and the warehousing purpose was the specified purpose for acquisition of the lands. CIDCO, in its Development Plan, has stated the area to be residential, which purpose was subsequently modified in the year 1979, and finally, the lands were acquired in the year 1986.
19. It cannot be disputed that potential of the land has to be considered while determining the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 20 market price of the land. However, the future potential, in view of the same decision may not be indicative of the market price. The potential and the facilities of the acquired land, as available on the date of Notification are to be considered while drawing inference of market price. In our opinion, in view of the admissions of the witnesses examined by the claimant, it would not be possible to say that these sale instances, are of necessary help to the claimant as indicative of market price of acquired land. He could have produced sale instances of village Kanheri or of the plots which are in the vicinity of the acquired land. As he has not done so, the sale instances relied by him as they appear from commercial area, would be required to be held as a not reliable for judging market value of the acquired land. The inferences drawn by the learned Judge as regards these sale deeds, cannot be said to be unwarranted.
20. This takes us to consider the impact of award Exhibit - 39 which is pressed into services by the claimant, contending that the same was the award passed in the case of the acquisition of the lands which were acquired for the same purpose ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 21 from the same village and at the same time, though his land was not included in that notification.
It is evident that there is nothing on record to suggest as to what had happened to that award, whether it has been accepted or challenged. The crucial question would be whether that award can be treated as a indicative of market price of the present land. It is claimed by the appellant-claimant that compensation in that case is awarded @ Rs.1400/- per sq. mtr. and at least that can be awarded in the present case. The learned Reference ig Judge seems to have not considered this aspect. However, on perusal of the contents of the said award Exhibit - 39 it would be seen that situation of that land was such that it was in the limits of Latur Municipal area.
In the area surrounding to that land, there were plots which were put to non agricultural use. It was also observed that the area is developed for commercial complex and residential area and it is located on Latur Ausa State Highway. In that award, rate of some lands was fixed to Rs.1400/-
per sq. mtr. and some land to Rs.1000/- per sq.mtr. Therefore, unless it is shown with specific evidence subjected to the test of cross examination, that land for which rate therein was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 22 granted to the tune of Rs. 1400/- per sq. mtr.
was similarly situated with acquired land it would not be possible to hold that compensation for the land under present acquisition can be fixed at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per sq. mtr. Here is the case where rate more than Rs.1000/- per sq. mtr i.e. above the minimum rate fixed in that award has been granted. Needless to repeat, in that award, uniform rate of Rs. 1400/- per sq. mtr.
is not awarded.
21. In our opinion, that award is also not helpful to the claimant. As such, contention of the learned counsel for appellant in this regard is far from acceptance.
22. It may also be stated that though it was expected of respondents to lead evidence to justify its award, the same was not done.
However, in the present case, as appellant has failed to establish his claim for enhancement in Reference, the contention that the respondents have failed to lead any evidence to justify the award therefore, adverse inference should be drawn, merits no consideration. Accordingly, it ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 ::: 23 is liable to be rejected.
23. The appeal of the State has been dismissed, consequent to dismissal of its application for condonation of delay and as State has not preferred any proceedings to challenge that order, it will have to be held that the State also can not be now permitted to say anything against the impugned judgment.
24. In sequel, we find that the appeal has to be dismissed.
ig The same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
[ S.R. DONGAONKAR, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/u/NOV08/fa605.97 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:09 :::