Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)Maruti Namdeo Gade vs Dattatraya Vishnu Maval on 17 June, 1975
13. Now, I have referred above to the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Maruti Namdeo's case with which I respectfully agree. As observed there, if the impugned order was not communicated to a party it could be shown that the party had knowledge of the making as well as the basic contents of the order appealed against. Now, the question is whether on the basis of what was stated in the two documents referred to above, the petitioner could be imputed with the knowledge of the basic contents of the order. It is difficult, in my view, to attribute such knowledge to the petitioner. Merely because the respondents said at the time of dispossessing the petitioner that they had obtained the acceptance of the surrender, the petitioner was not expected to blindly rely upon that assertion so long as no formal order was communicated to him as regards the acceptance of the surrender by the Naib Tahsildar. It may be noted that the petitioner had himself complained to the Naib Tahsildar by his communication dated March 8, 1961 that the surrender document be cancelled. The petitioner was justified in expecting the communication to him orders of the Naib Tahsildar on the application for acceptance of surrender initiated by the respondent Rambhau, and on his own communication. Now, coming to the averment of respondent Rambhau in his reply dated January 11, 1962 that averment is not in my view sufficient to persuade one to hold that the petitioner got the knowledge of the basic contents of the order. What was stated in the reply dated January 11, 1962 was simply that the surrender deed was accepted before- the .Tahsildar.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 20 in Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
1