Ashalata Babasaheb Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra
2008 Latest Caselaw 109 Bom

                               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.)

. 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

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

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

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.

The 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








    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