1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 545 OF 2009 IN CROSS OBJECTION (L) NO. 3 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2007 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Appellant (Ori. Res. No. 2) Versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer (7) & Ors. ...Respondents (No.1 Ori. Res. 1 & Ori. Appellants) Mr. P.G. Lad for the Appellant Mr. R.A. Lokhande, A.G.P., for the State Mr. C.M. Korde, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Milind Jadhav i/by Ms. V.R. Bhilare for Respondents No.2 to 4(a)-(d). CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATE: JULY 08, 2010 P.C.:- This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the appellant-original respondent No.2, seeking permission of the 2 Court to amend the Cross Objection. By amendment, the appellant wants to add a ground in the Cross Objection that the application for reference was barred by the Law of Limitation. 2. This Chamber Summons is opposed on behalf of the respondents. According to the respondents, apart from the fact that the Chamber Summons is liable to be rejected because it is belated, and has been filed when the appeal itself was being heard, finally the ground, which is sought to be included, is without any substance. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. We have also perused the record. It is an admitted position that the Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (7) on 30th October, 1992. It is the case of the original appellants that they were not served with any notice under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 ('the Act' for short); and, therefore, their application for reference, which is made on 10th March, 1993, is within the period of limitation. 3 4. The case of the original respondent is that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the original appellants on 5th November, 1992; and, therefore, they were obliged to submit the Reference within a period of 6 weeks therefrom; and, therefore, the Reference is barred by the Law of Limitation. The original respondent relies on the acknowledgment, copy of which has not been produced by the original respondent, but has been produced by the original appellants. That acknowledgment shows that on behalf of the original appellants, the notice was received by one Mrs. Mhatre on 5th November, 1992. Perusal of the provisions of Section 45 of the Act shows that the notices issued under the Act have to be served on the person to whom the notice is addressed. If he cannot be found, it can be served on an adult male member of his family residing with him; and if no such adult male member can be found, then notice can be fixed on the outer door of the house. It is nobody's case either that the notice was personally served on the original 4 appellants or that the service was effected by affixing the notice to the outer door of their residence. The case is that service of notice on Sow. Mhatre is in accordance with law. The submission is to be only to be mentioned to be rejected, because in order that it is a valid service, the notice has to be served on an adult male member of the family of the person to whom the notice is addressed. Mrs. Mhatre cannot be "an adult male member", even assuming that she is a member of the family of the original appellants, and is residing with them. 5. Thus, we find that the ground sought to be included in the Cross Objection is a meaningless ground. The Chamber Summons is, therefore, disposed of. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)