1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4340/2009 (Diliplsingh Gulati & others ..V/s.. State of Maharashtra & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Mahajan, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Bharti Dangre, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 6. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS JJ. DATE : 17 th MARCH , 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and 6. The petitioner in the present petition has a grievance about the section 4 notification issued by the respondent under the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the mandatory provision of the said Act has not been followed. It is contended that the section 4(1) requires the State Government to publish the notification in the official gazette, and in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality of which one shall be in the regional language (where the land is situated). It is contended that the procedure stipulated under 2 section 4 has not been followed in the present case. The learned Additional Government Pleader on the counter has submitted that the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not correct, there is no specific averments in this regard made in the petition nor in the objections submitted by the petitioner. It is contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer is strictly following the procedure stipulated under the Land Acquisition Act while acquiring the land for the purpose of construction of by-pass road. It is further contended that the averments made in the petition show that the procedure stipulated under section 4 of the Act is being followed. Considering the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present petition it is not in dispute that the objections submitted by the petitioner pursuant to notice under section 4 (1), the petitioner has not raised any objection that the State Government did not publish the notification as required under section 4 (1) of the Act in one of the regional language; in absence thereof it is difficult for us to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner for the first time before us. Similarly, even in the petition no specific ground is raised in this 3 regard. Hence no case is made out for showing the indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.