JUDGMENT Mody J. - By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ under Articles 226 and or /227 of the Constitution, quashing the order of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Nagpur, dated 20th January 1969, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 12 to the petition. The respondents to the petition are the Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur; the Genera] Manager, Central Railway, Bombay; the Union of India; and the State of Maharashtra. 2. The petitioner, who is an employee of the Central Railway, along with his certain co-employees, was, in the early hours of the morning of 3rd May 1966, bringing a train from Itarsi to Nagpur. The petitioner was working as a Fireman in the engine of that train, and as directed by the Driver of the engine, he was feeding coal into the furnace. While doing so, a burning spark from the furnace of the engine injured the right eye of the petitioner. The injury was serious, and as a result of it the petitioner permanently lost the sight of his right eye. On 11th July 1967 the petitioner filed an application for compensation under the provisions of section 22 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, before the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, who is appointed as the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation for Nagpur Region, making the first two respondents herein as respondents to that application. In the matter of that application, the first two respondents raised a preliminary objection about jurisdiction that the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur as such Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, contending that in view of the provisions of law, the petitioner having suffered injury while working on the railway train itself, only the Commissioner of Workmens Compensation at Bombay would have jurisdiction. The Judge sought the opinion of respondent No 4, being the State of Maharashtra, on the point of jurisdiction. The State gave the opinion that the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation at Bombay had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the petitioners application. The learned Judge, acting on the opinion 80 received from the State by the impugned order held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioners said application. 3. The State gave the opinion that the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation at Bombay had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the petitioners application. The learned Judge, acting on the opinion 80 received from the State by the impugned order held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioners said application. 3. In this petition, it is the petitioners contention that the learned Judge, as Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, has jurisdiction to entertain the application, and he seeks an Older not only quashing the impugned order but also directing the learned Judge as Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, to hear and dispose of the petitioners application before him on the merits of that application. 4. Sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Workmens Compensation Act provides: "The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any person to be a Commissioner for Workmens Compensation for such area as may be specified in the notification." In exercise of the powers so conferred upon it, respondent No.4, the State Government, has issued a notification dated 4th May 1959, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 1-A to the petition. The notification provides that in. exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 20 of the workmens Compensation Act and in supersession of all previous orders issued by the former Madhya Pradesh Government in this behalf, the Government of Bombay by the notification appointed on and with effect from the 15th day of May 1959 the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur to be a Commissioner for Workmens Compensation for the revenue taluka of Nagpur. By another notification dated 10th August 1959, a copy whereof is also a part of Annexure 1-A to the petition, respondent No.4 Government made a correction in the said earlier notification substituting the word "district" for the words "revenue taluka" occurring in the earlier notification. 5. This amended notification by itself would present not much difficulty, because it appoints the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur as Commissioner for Workmens Compensation for the district of Nagpur. The respondents do not dispute that the petitioner received his injury while the train was nearing Nagpur. 5. This amended notification by itself would present not much difficulty, because it appoints the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur as Commissioner for Workmens Compensation for the district of Nagpur. The respondents do not dispute that the petitioner received his injury while the train was nearing Nagpur. The respondents, however, contend that this notification has no application to the present case because the accident occurred on the railway line that the railway lines are located on land belonging to the Central Government, respondent No.3, and that it cannot be said that that part of the land of the Central Government is situated within the district of Nagpur. The respondents have not raised this specific point in the return and have not averred that the land of the railway lines belongs to the Central Government or that it is not situated within the district of Nagpur. To whom the land of the railway line belongs is a question of fact, and the point not having been raised, cannot be allowed to be urged on behalf of the respondents. The respondents, however, orally invited this Court to take Judi cited notice of the fact that all land on which railway lines or tracks are laid belong all over India, to the Central Government. In our opinion, the fact that a particular railway track is situated on land belongs to the Central Government is a question of fact, and it is for the respondents to satisfy this Court about it, and no judicial notice can be taken as canvassed for on behalf of the respondents. It is not disputed that territorially or geographically that track is located within the district of Nagpur. In our opinion, therefore, this notification dated 4th May 1959, as amended as aforesaid, would confer jurisdiction on the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur as Commissioner for Workmens Compensation to hear the petitioners application. 6. The respondents, however, also rely upon a notification and a Government Resolution of the Government of the Presidency of Bombay, as it then was, copies of which are annexed as Exh. R-I and Exh. R-II to their return. The notification is dated 8th June 1926 and it is issued in exercise of, the power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 20. R-I and Exh. R-II to their return. The notification is dated 8th June 1926 and it is issued in exercise of, the power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 20. The Government has by that notification, extended the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Bombay, to all cases arising in the Presidency of Bombay, to which the Great Indian Peninsula Railway is a part. The material words in this notification are "arising in the Presidency of Bombay". If he express words of the notification, therefore, confine the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Bombay, to cases arising in the Presidency of Bombay. The notification having been issued in 1926, the territory of the Presidency of Bombay should prima facie be the territory, which was comprised in the Presidency of Bombay at the date when this notification was issued. The district of Nagpur, and as a matter of fact, the eight. Vidarbha districts, were not comprised in the Presidency of Bombay at that time. The respondents further contend that the words "arising in the Presidency of Bombay" appearing in this notification must, in the subsequent events which have transpired, be read as referring to the State of Maharashtra. In other words, what the respondents invite this Court to hold is that since the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, "this Court must read the words "the State of Maharashtra" for the words "the Presidency of Bombay". In out opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. Section 120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, provides that for the purpose of facilitating the application of any law in relation to any of the States formed or territorially altered by the provisions of Part II, the appropriate Government may, before the expiration of one year from the appointed day, by order make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient and thereupon "every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. Section 8 (1) (c) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which appears in Part II of that Act, formed a new State of Bombay comprising within it, inter alia, the eight Vidarbha districts of the then existing State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 8 (1) (c) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which appears in Part II of that Act, formed a new State of Bombay comprising within it, inter alia, the eight Vidarbha districts of the then existing State of Madhya Pradesh. The district of Nagpur came to be included in the then State of Bombay for the first time by reason of this provision. The definition of "Jaw" contained in clause (h) of section 2 of that Act shows that notifications having the force of law would be law within the meaning of that word as occurring in section 120. The effect, therefore, is, on the one hand, that the said notification dated 8th June 1926 required an order as contemplated by .section 120 if it was to extend to the territory within any of the said eight - districts of Vidarbha, and on the other hand, the mid notification dated 4th May 1959 as aforesaid continued to operate within the territory to which it originally applied when that territory formed part of the former State of Madhya Pradesh. Under the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, there were created the two States of Maharashtra and Gujarat, and the said eight districts of Vidarbha continued to remain in the State of Maharashtra. In view of the provisions contained in section 88 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, the position has continued to remain as it was prior to the coming into force of that Act. 7. The Government Resolution referred to above is dated 15th January 1935. By that Resolution, the Government of the Presidency of Bombay issued certain instructions as regards the distribution of work between the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Bombay and the ex-officio Commissioners. Paragraph 3 of that Resolution directs that the Commissioner for Workmens "Compensation, Bombay, alone should continue to deal as before with the accidents arising, inter alia, on the G. I. P. Railway. What this Resolution contains is specifically stated to be instructions. The Resolution does not even purport to be a notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Workmens Compensation Act. Sub-section (1) of section 20 has not even been referred to in that Resolution. Moreover, sub-section (1) of section 20 requires that a notification issued in exercise of the powers thereunder must appear in the Official Gazette. The Resolution does not even purport to be a notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Workmens Compensation Act. Sub-section (1) of section 20 has not even been referred to in that Resolution. Moreover, sub-section (1) of section 20 requires that a notification issued in exercise of the powers thereunder must appear in the Official Gazette. It is not even the respondents case that this Government Resolution has been published at any time in the Official Gazette. The contents in paragraph 3 of the Government Resolution, therefore, cannot be relied upon for ascertaining or as affecting the jurisdiction of the various commissioners for Workmens Compensation. 8. In the circumstances in view of the provisions of the said notification dated 4th May 1959, as amended as aforesaid, it is the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur as a Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, who has jurisdiction over the petitioners application. We reject the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that the Commissioner for Workmens compensation, Bombay, has exclusive jurisdiction or any jurisdiction for that matter, to try the petitioners application because of the provisions of the add notification dated 8th June 1926. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct that the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur as the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation do proceed to hear and dispose of the petitioners said application in accordance with law. The respondents to pay the petitioners costs of this petition. Petition allowed.