[Case Brief] Vijay Narayan Thatte & Ors v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors

“Rules of Interpretation are very important in law courts. When the British came to India they introduced the principles of interpretation of Maxwell, laid down in his classic treatise ‘Interpretation of Statutes’ and these principles are broadly still being followed in our law courts in India. However, our ancient thinkers had created a system of interpretation called the Mimansa Rules of Interpretation, which appears to have been totally suppressed by the British, evidently because they wanted to create an impression that Indians are a race of fools and savages with no worthwhile intellectual achievement to their credit.” – Justice Katju.

Vijay Narayan Thatte & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors

Civil Appeal No. 5614 of 2009

Before Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 18th August 2009

Bench: Markandey Katju, Ashok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.

Author of the Judgement: Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly

Advocates for Appellants: Shri Harish Salve and Shri Shyam Diva, Learned Senior Counsels

Advocates for Respondent: Goolam Essaji Vahanvati, Attorney General of India and Shekhar Naphade, Advocates

Brief Facts:

  • A notification on 29.08.2002 was issued by the state government under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land in question.
  • Thereafter a Notification under section 6 of the act was issued on 18.06.2003. The said notification under section 6 was challenged and subsequently, this notification was quashed.
  • Then again, on 30.10.2006, the second notification under section 6 was issued by the state government.


  • Whether the notification under section 6 issued by the state government on 30.10.2006 is valid or not?

Arguments of appellants:

  • The proviso to section 6 is mandatory, and hence the notification under section 6 dated 30.10.2006 is time barred.

Arguments for the respondents:

  • The judgement of the high court dated 20.01.2004 permitted the authorities to issue a second section 6 notification even beyond the time provided by the proviso to section 6 of the act.
  • The judgement dated 20.01.2004 is res judicata and since the said judgement was not challenged before the Supreme Court, it had become final. Accordingly, in the said judgement, the petitioners were barred from raising any issue if they were aggrieved by the Section 5A report and subsequent declaration under section 6 of the act by the counsel. Thus now no objection can be taken.


The said notification is clearly barred by clause (ii) of the proviso to section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.



Leave a Reply