B. C. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter was heard at length. Learned Advocates have been given full opportunity to produce documents and to argue their case. Hence, this matter is treated as heard as if it is heard at the stage of final hearing. ( 2 ) ONE Jagdish Bhadra, claiming to be the Power of Attorney-holder of the petitioners herein, has filed this petition on behalf of the three petitioners, challenging the issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 14-10-1993, annexure f to the petition and challenging the award dated 19-10-1995, Annexure k to the petition. ( 3 ) EARLIER, these three petitioners approached this Court through the same power of attorney-holder by filing Special civil Application No. 7890 of 1994, praying for several reliefs including quashing and setting aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The said petition came to be rejected by a judgment of a Division bench of this Court in December 1994. The said judgment was challenged before the apex Court by preferring Civil Appeal No. 11616 of 1995, which came to be rejected on 1-12-1995. ( 4 ) FACTS leading to the filing of the present petition concisely stated are as under: the land in question was sought to be acquired for circular road, parking, booking office and other facilities on the eastern side of Surat Railway Station. After considering the requirements, it transpires that notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 29-10-1992: Persons who lodged their objections under Section 5a of the Act were heard, and after following the procedure laid down under the Act, notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14-10-1993 for acquisition of land for the purpose of circular road and parking. The earlier petition was filed on or about 15-2-1994 and this Court issued notice on 28-6-1994. It is contended by the petitioners that final Plot No. 274 of village Navagam in surat, admeasuring 1511 sq. mtr. was purchased from the land owners, vide sale deed dated 21-10-1991 which was registered on 14-2-1992 with the Joint Sub-Registrar, surat. It is averred in the petition that petitioner No. 1 raised objection to the acquisition of the land in question on various grounds. Copies of objection dated 4-1- 1993 and 22-3-1993 are at Annexure c to the petition. The petitioner. It is averred in the petition that petitioner No. 1 raised objection to the acquisition of the land in question on various grounds. Copies of objection dated 4-1- 1993 and 22-3-1993 are at Annexure c to the petition. The petitioner. was not heard under Section 5a. After following the provisions contained in the Act as stated earlier, notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published which was challenged before this Court by filing the earlier petition. It is contended by the petitioners that for the first time, notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act was served on 23-11-1993 informing petitioner No. 1 that the date of hearing is fixed on 6-12-1993. On 4-12- 1993 and 31-12-1993, the petitioner No. 1 forwarded reminders requesting for fresh date of hearing. It is contended by the learned Counsel that on 13-10-1995, the petitioner No. 1 was informed that the award would be declared on 19-10-1995. On 17-10-1995, all the three petitioners, through a lawyer, made a grievance that the award should not be passed as the matter is pending before the Apex Court. However, on 19-10-1995, the award came to be passed. It is thereafter that the Honourable supreme Court rejected the Special Leave petition preferred against the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil application No. 7890 /94. It is contended that on 14-10-1995, the petitioner No. 1 got the copy of the award. He received certified copy of the Apex Courts judgment on 27- 12-1995. It appears that on 16-2-1996, as notice for possession came to be issued, the petitioner rushed to this Court by filing the present petition, on 27-2-1996. ( 5 ) MR. Thakore, learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions: (1) Special Land Acquisition Officer has not issued notice under Section 9 (3) of the act to all the petitioners, and, therefore, the proceedings initiated after the stage of Section 9 (3) requires to be quashed and set aside. (2) Notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act came to be issued to the petitioner No. 1 for the first time on 23-11-1993 and the date of hearing was fixed on 6-12-1993. Therefore, 15 days time as required under Section 9 is not given. Therefore, even notice given to petitioner No. 1 is also bad and further proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, 15 days time as required under Section 9 is not given. Therefore, even notice given to petitioner No. 1 is also bad and further proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside. (3) Personal hearing is not given to the petitioner No. 1 in spite of the fact that notice was issued and, therefore, the award is bad. (4) The powers exercised are colourable, and therefore, the award is required to be quashed. (5) Lastly, in any event, the petitioner no. 1 is referred to as a tenant/occupier in the award instead of owner of the property and therefore also, the award is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 6 ) MR. Thakore, learned Advocate fairly stated that in view of the fact that earlier the petitioners filed a petition challenging the notification under Section 6 has been rejected, he cannot press the same relief again in this petition. He also fairly stated that the proceedings initiated after Section 9 (3) notice are required to be quashed and set aside. ( 7 ) SECTION 9 of the Act reads as under:"9. Notice to persons interested (1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. (2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at the time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of notice), and to State the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under Section 8. The Collector may in any case, require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. The Collector may in any case, require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. (3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situated. (4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business and registered under Sections 28 and 29 of the indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898 ). ( 8 ) ON behalf of the State, Mr. Anand and Mr. Panchal pointed out that this petition is required to be rejected as apart from the fact that on the same ground an earlier petition filed by the petitioners came to be rejected, the petitioners have suppressed material facts and have also misled the court. According to them, this is an abuse of the process of the Court and if the petitioners are not coming to the Court with clean hands, then the petitioners should not be heard and the petition must be rejected the moment it is pointed out that the averments made in the petition are false or there is suppression of material facts. ( 9 ) BY the draft amendment of paragraph 6, the petitioners have stated as under:"the first petitioner was issued notice under Section 9 on 23-11-1993 fixing the date of hearing on 6-12-1996. . . . Though the land bearing final plot No. 274 which had been purchased vide registered sale deed on 21-10-1991, i. e. before the issuance of the notification under Section 4, no notice under Section 9 was served on either the petitioner No. 2 or the petitioner No. 3. "by amending paragraph 10, the petitioners have stated that:"despite the fact that there was adequate time for the purpose of passing the award and in fact the award was passed after one year and 10 months from the aforesaid request, the second respondent did not deem it fit to grant any opportunity of hearing. "by amending paragraph 10, the petitioners have stated that:"despite the fact that there was adequate time for the purpose of passing the award and in fact the award was passed after one year and 10 months from the aforesaid request, the second respondent did not deem it fit to grant any opportunity of hearing. " ( 10 ) THE petitioners have placed on record a copy of the letter dated 23-11-93 at page 67/a, issued by the Office of the Special land Acquisition Officer, Surat and addressed, amongst four other persons, to petitioner No. 1 Bhimjibhai Khodabhai, jamnagar Transport, Surat also. It is mentioned in the said letter that for hearing under Section 9 (3) and (4), the matter is fixed at 12. 00 noon on 6-12-1993 and they should remain present either personally or through an advocate failing which, the matter shall proceed further in their absence. Thereafter, on 4-12-1993, vide annexure h, the petitioner No. 1 giving his address at Jamnagar Transport Company, Surat, addressed a letter to Special land Acquisition Officer, Surat, requesting to grant date on 6-12-1993 as he has to go out of station to attend the marriage of his relative. Vide Annexure i dated 31-12- 1993, a reminder was forwarded by the petitioner No. 1 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for giving fresh date. Mr. Thakore, learned Counsel submitted that from this it is clear that for the first time, notice was issued on 23-11-1993 and 15 days time which is required to be granted and in hot haste, the application appears to have been turned down and without hearing the petitioner No. 1, the award has been passed, and, therefore, the award must be quashed. Mr. Thakore, learned Counsel for the petitioners, took us through various judgments in support of his contention that the provision is mandatory and breach of it would vitiate further proceedings. ( 11 ) BY filing an affidavit-in-reply, the state denied these contentions of the petitioner No. 1 and the State has placed before us the original file, which is also perused by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is pointed out to us from the file that on 21-10-1993, notice under Section 9 (1) which was required to be published was in fact published in the presence of petitioner no. 1. It is pointed out to us from the file that on 21-10-1993, notice under Section 9 (1) which was required to be published was in fact published in the presence of petitioner no. 1. Panchnama for publication of notice dated 21-10-1993 is shown to us which is also signed by three persons including the petitioner No. 1. The draft of the notice is at page 237 of the file. Thus, the petitioner no. 1 came to know about the proceedings commenced under Section 9 and he himself was a panch. Mr. Panchal, learned A. G. P. pointed out from the file that notice under sections 9 (3) and (4) is at page No. 239 of the file. At page 271, there is a schedule indicating the service of notice to the persons under Section 9 (3) and (4 ). Reading the same, it is very clear that the same has been received by the petitioner No. 1 on 25- 10-1993 and from that schedule, it is also clear that apart from the petitioner No. 1, others have also received the same. At page 273 is the copy of the notice for petitioner no. 1 dated 21-10-1993. Thus, it is very clear that notice under Section 9 (3) and (4) was served on the petitioner No. 1 on 25- 10-1993. By this notice, petitioner No. 1 was called upon to remain present on 8-11 - 1993. On 8-11-1993, the petitioner No. 1, giving address of Jamnagar Transport company, addressed an application for date indicating therein that he has to obtain legal advice of experts and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 16-11-1993 and there is a note in that behalf on the application. As the petitioner No. 1 failed to remain present, as a last opportunity, intimation was given to him by notice dated 23-11- 1993 to remain present on 6-12-1993. And it is copy of this notice dated 23-11-1993 that is produced on the record at page 67/ a by the petitioners. ( 12 ) IN the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioners is not right in his submission that for the first time, petitioner No. 1 was informed on 23-11-1993 to remain present on 6-12-1993 for hearing under Section 9 (3) of the Act. ( 12 ) IN the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioners is not right in his submission that for the first time, petitioner No. 1 was informed on 23-11-1993 to remain present on 6-12-1993 for hearing under Section 9 (3) of the Act. It is explicitly clear from the file produced before us that the petitioner No. 1 knew about the proceedings under Section 9 from 21-10- 1993 onwards and he received notice under section 9 (3) on 25-10-1993. In spite of this, the petitioner No. 1 has come before the Court with a case that he has been served with the notice as required under the law only on 23-11-1993. The petitioner No. 1 also knew about notice under Section 9 (1) because he himself was a signatory to the panchanama dated 21-10-1993 prepared for the purpose of notice under Section 9 (1) and in his presence, notice was published the petitioner No. 1 also knew about the proceedings under Section 9 (1) from 21- 10-93 and he received notice under Section 9 (3) on 25-10-1993. The above referred details clearly indicate that though the petitioner no. 1 knew about the proceedings, and though he was served with notice on 25-10-1993, he has come out with a case that he has not been served with the notice as required under the law. If these facts would have been placed before the learned counsel by the petitioner, then possibly even learned Counsel for the petitioners would not have argued the matter on this ground at length. In view of the facts which are narrated hereinabove and it is clear from the record that the contention with regard to notice being not given to the petitioner No. 1 in accordance with law and that personal hearing was not given, is required to be rejected and is rejected. If the petitioner No. 1 has not availed of the opportunity of hearing which was given to him, he cannot raise any grievance that opportunity of hearing was not given. Therefore, the contention regarding 15 days time and personal hearing being not given to the petitioner No. 1 has no merit. If the petitioner No. 1 has not availed of the opportunity of hearing which was given to him, he cannot raise any grievance that opportunity of hearing was not given. Therefore, the contention regarding 15 days time and personal hearing being not given to the petitioner No. 1 has no merit. ( 13 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that notice to all the petitioners under Section 9 (3) is a must, and if notice is not given even to a co-owner, then the proceedings so far as the co-owner is concerned, are bad. According to the learned counsel, in the instant case, even if it is held that notice is served on the petitioner no. 1, as notice under Section 9 (3) is not served on petitioners No. 2 and 3, the award qua petitioners No. 2 and 3 must be quashed and set aside. Mr. . Thakore, learned Counsel submitted that when earlier petition was filed, the sale deed was annexed with the petition and, therefore, it was known to the Special Land Acquisition officer that all the petitioners are the co- owners of the property in question and, therefore, he had adequate knowledge when the process was served. According to him, in view of the language employed in Section 9 (3), notice ought to have been given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to all the co-owners. Learned Counsel has placed before us an entry under the Registration Act indicating that by a registered sale deed, the petitioners became the owners before the notification under Section 4 came to be issued. He further submitted that no doubt mutation entry is the prima facie evidence, but by other source if the special Land Acquisition Officer has derived knowledge, he should issue notices. He further submitted that even the Special land Acquisition Officer could have inquired from the original owner as to who are the present owners of the land and thereby he could have issued notice to all the owners. Prima facie, Mr. Thakores contention appears to be attractive. He pointed out from various decision that the provision is mandatory and notice must be served under Section 9 (3 ). Prima facie, Mr. Thakores contention appears to be attractive. He pointed out from various decision that the provision is mandatory and notice must be served under Section 9 (3 ). ( 14 ) UNDER Section 4 of the Act, the requirement is that notification must be published in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of which at least one should be in the regional language. This section provides that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification at the convenient places in the said locality. Section 4 nowhere contemplates that personal notice is required to be given to individual owners or occupiers. Objections are to be heard under Section 5-A and that section contemplates that if a person is interested in any land which has been notified under section 4 as being needed or likely to be needed for public purposes or for a Company, then within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice, he has to object to the notification of the land or any land in the locality, as the case may be. Such person is required to forward his objection in writing to the Collector and the Collector shall have to give an opportunity of being heard to such person or any person authorised by him in this behalf or by a pleader. After hearing such objections and after making such further inquiry if any as he thinks necessary, the Collector shall have to follow the procedure laid down under the Act. Thus, after publication of notification under Section 4, all persons who are interested in the land and who have objection to the acquisition have to lodge their objections before the Collector. That is how the Collector would know as to who are the persons objecting and in what capacity they are objecting. At this stage, it is interesting to refer to the objections raised by the petitioner No. 1 before the Special land Acquisition Officer, which is at annexure c to the petition. In paragraph 8 of the written objection, the petitioner no. 1 has stated as under:"the said land is of my ownership and I have made an application for construction to the Urban Development and the permission is not given and the Municipal corporation has initiated unilaterally the proceedings for acquisition of land. . . . . . . . In paragraph 8 of the written objection, the petitioner no. 1 has stated as under:"the said land is of my ownership and I have made an application for construction to the Urban Development and the permission is not given and the Municipal corporation has initiated unilaterally the proceedings for acquisition of land. . . . . . . . "in the objection, the petitioner No. 1 has nowhere stated that he is a co-owner of the land in question and there are other co- owners. His case was that he was the absolute owner of the property. The petii tioner No. 1, giving his address at Jamnagar transport Company, Surat, has forward a letter on 23-2-1993 to the Deputy Secretary wherein also he has specifically stated that:"i have come to know my land is going to be acquired for the road and parking place of Surat Municipal Corporation. "in the said letter, he has requested to forward communication at the address of jamnagar Transport Company at Surat. Thus, it is very clear that even while raising objections under Section 5-A it is the petitioner No. 1 who has approached the special Land Acquisition Officer and stated that he is the absolute owner of the property, without document/s in support of his claim. It is required to be stated at this stage that even till this moment, the petitioners have not forwarded a copy of the sale deed to the Special Land Acquisition officer. It may be that the copy is filed before this Court in the earlier proceedings. Again, the relevant aspect of tendering the sale deed before the Court in the earlier proceedings is important from another angle. Mr. Thakores contention is that as the same was produced before the Court along with the petition in an earlier proceedings, which was served on the Land acquisition Officer, and thus he had knowledge that the petitioners have become the owners of the property. We have stated earlier that the earlier petition was filed on 15-2-1994 and this Court issued notice therein on 28-6-1994. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the Surat Municipal Corporation stated before us that even at the time of filing the petition the sale deed was not produced, and therefore, objection was raised by the Corporation and for the first time, along with affidavit dated 18th October 1994, the sale deed was produced in the earlier proceedings. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the Surat Municipal Corporation stated before us that even at the time of filing the petition the sale deed was not produced, and therefore, objection was raised by the Corporation and for the first time, along with affidavit dated 18th October 1994, the sale deed was produced in the earlier proceedings. Thus, it is clear that the sale deed was not produced even along with the petition and for the first time it was produced in the Court on or after 18- 10-1994. Mr. Thakore has not controverted this aspect. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had knowledge about the sale deed. Notice under Section 9 (3) has been issued to the petitioner No. 1 presumably because he raised an objection contending that he is the absolute owner of the property. As petitioners No. 2 and 3 raised no objection at any stage before notice under Section 9 (3) which was served on 25-10-1993 to the petitioner No. 1, there was no material whatsoever produced before the Special land Acquisition Officer by any of the petitioners that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the co-owners of the land. Mr. Thakores contention would have been justified if notice under Section 9 (3) was issued for the first time after the sale deed was produced before this Court. But in the instant case, sale deed was produced before this Court after the proceedings under Section 9 (3) were concluded so far as the petitioners are concerned. Rojkam at page 287 of the original file clearly indicates that on 6-12-1993, neither the petitioner No. 1 himself nor anyone on behalf of him appeared though notice was served under section 9 (1) (2) and (3) and therefore the proceedings has been concluded ex parte, without hearing anyone at that stage and it was decided to proceed further in accordance with law. If objection was raised as contemplated under Section 5 (A) by the persons or whose name appears in the revenue records before issuance of notification under Section 4 were not given an opportunity, the grievance would have been justified. ( 15 ) IN the case of Bhola S hanker v. Dist. L. A. Officer reported in AIR 1972 SC 2477 , the Apex Court considered the arguments of non-issuance of notice to the owner. ( 15 ) IN the case of Bhola S hanker v. Dist. L. A. Officer reported in AIR 1972 SC 2477 , the Apex Court considered the arguments of non-issuance of notice to the owner. Of course in that case, the plot in question was purchased after publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act but what is important is that the Apex Court has observed that the purchaser did not take any steps to get his name mutated and when the time came for issue of notice under Section 9, individual notice required under Section 9 (3) was issued to those persons who were shown in the official papers as the tenure holders of the plot in question. Approving the observations of the high Court, the Apex Court held that:"the High Court rightly observed that for this it was the appellant who himself was to blame. Moreover, from the counter- affidavit filed in the High Court it was clear that the public notice under Section 9 (1) was affixed at prominent places in the locality and the High Court was not inclined to believe that the petitioner remained in ignorance of the land acquisition proceedings. "in the instant case, though the notification has been published after the transaction in question which is alleged to have been entered into between the seller and purchaser, till this date, there is no mutation entry. Apart from that, even under section 5-A the petitioners No. 2 and 3 have not raised any objection or have not produced any record indicating that they are co-owners of the property, but on the contrary, petitioner No. 1 has placed in writing his objection stating that he is the sole owner of the property. Therefore, it would not be justified in saying that the special Land Acquisition Officer has committed an error. ( 16 ) MR. Thakore, learned Counsel contended that in the instant case, the purchase was prior to issuance of notification under section 4, and therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court would not apply to the instant case. We are not in agreement with his submission. ( 16 ) MR. Thakore, learned Counsel contended that in the instant case, the purchase was prior to issuance of notification under section 4, and therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court would not apply to the instant case. We are not in agreement with his submission. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Umashankar Rajabahu reported in (1996) 1 SCC 299 , the Apex Court considered a case where notification under Section 4 was published in the gazette on 17-9-1970 and ultimately the award was passed on 15- 9-1971. Prior to issuance of notice under section 4, i. e. on 17-6-68, plots of land came to be purchased from Ushmanshahi mills which was in liquidation. It appears that his plot was again sold to another party. In paragraph 2 of the judgment, the apex Court held as under:"as regards the notices under Section 9, it now transpires from the revenue records that the original owner, namely, ushmanshahi Mill was served. Since mutation had not been affected in the name of respondents Nos. 1-3, though purchased prior to the publication of notification under Section 4 (1), they could not be issued notices as required under Section 9. Notice to the fourth respondent is obviously impossible, since the award has already been made on 15-9-1971. "thus, it is very clear that if there is no mutation entry, the Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot be blamed. It is for the purchaser of a land to get the records of the government up-to-date and if he remains negligent, thereafter he has no right to blame others. In the instant case, person whose name appeared in the record is served with the notice as pointed out from the panchnama. As observed by the Apex court in the case of Sureshchandra C. Mehta v. State of Karnataka reported in 1994 SUPP (2) SCC 511. It is not necessary for the Land Acquisition Officer to make roving inquiries as to who is the person entitled to get notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act. By notification under Section 4, persons who are interested in the land are notified to lodge their objections under the Act and if those persons who have filed their objections are not served, then the matter is different. By notification under Section 4, persons who are interested in the land are notified to lodge their objections under the Act and if those persons who have filed their objections are not served, then the matter is different. If the persons whose names appear in the Government records, i. e. revenue records are not given an opportunity under Section 9 (3), the grievance may be justified. But, in the absence of conveying information to the special Land Acquisition Officer and without getting the mutation entries in the revenue records amended, it would not be proper to say that the Special Land Acquisition Officer may make roving inquiries to find out as to who are the persons entitled to get compensation. ( 17 ) IN view of the aforesaid legal position and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the petitioners are not justified in making grievances before this court that non-issuance of notice under section 9 (3) of the Act would vitiate the award. ( 18 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is colourable exercise of powers and he requested the Court to draw inferences from the following facts: (1) Non-service of notice under Section 9 (3 ). (2) Though the Special Land Acquisition officer acquired knowledge that the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the owners of the land in question, he has neglected to serve them. (3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer has totally omitted the petitioners from the award and petitioner No. 1 is shown as a tenant or an occupier and not as an owner though under Section 5-A, by raising an objection he has pointed out that he is the owner. (4) By notice under Section 10, Special land Acquisition Officer could have collected the materials from previous owner and in not doing so, powers are not exercised in accordance with law. (5) Special Land Acquisition Officer has not bothered to call for the details of the sale instances and particularly the land in question and if that was done, he would have come to know about the same. ( 19 ) SO far as non-service of notice is concerned, we have dealt with the same in detail and we find no fault with the Special land Acquisition Officer. ( 19 ) SO far as non-service of notice is concerned, we have dealt with the same in detail and we find no fault with the Special land Acquisition Officer. With regard to the grievance that the petitioner No. 1 is shown as a tenant and not the owner, we would like to say that it is the petitioner no. 1 himself who approached the Special land Acquisition Officer disclosing that he is the sole owner of the land without producing any material before him. Special land Acquisition Officer has not to examine the title and he has to consider the revenue records. It is for the person who alleges that he is the owner to produce relevant materials before the Special Land acquisition Officer even for his prima facie conclusion that the claim is just and proper. In the absence of that, no such grievance can be made. With regard to making inquiries from the original owner, the Land Acquisition Officer is not supposed to make roving inquiries and no grievance can be made in this regard, more particularly, when no evidence was produced before him indicating that the petitioner No. 1 has become the owner and the mutation entry was not reflecting that petitioner No. 1 is the owner or there are other owners. So far as the sale instances are concerned, that cannot be the subject-matter of writ petition and remedy is provided under Section 18 of the Act for adequate compensation. ( 20 ) IN the case of Laxmanrao v. Govt. of bombay reported in AIR (37) 1950 bombay 334, the Division Bench of bombay High Court had an occasion to consider the case of a person interested wherein notice under Section 9 (3) was served on the occupier but not on the person interested. The Court held that the award cannot be challenged unless it is alleged and proved that the omission was wilful or perverse or fraudulent. We are of the opinion that there must be sufficient material before the Court for making an allegation that the Special Land Acquisition officer who is empowered to exercise powers under the special statute has exercised the powers either with mala fide or fraudulently or that the powers exercised are colourable. We are of the opinion that there must be sufficient material before the Court for making an allegation that the Special Land Acquisition officer who is empowered to exercise powers under the special statute has exercised the powers either with mala fide or fraudulently or that the powers exercised are colourable. In the instant case, we find that it was the case the petitioner No. 1 at the stage of Section 5-A, that the petitioner No. 1 is the sole owner and that at no point of time before issuance of notice under Section 9 (3) the Special Land Acquisition Officer is informed about the sale deed by which the petitioners have become the owners. Therefore, no grievance can be made that there is colourable exercise of power by the Special Land Acquisition officer. The objection before the officer concerned showed that the petitioner No. 1 claimed to be the sole owner without evidence. As required under Section 9 (1), notice was published in the manner laid down in the said section. As out of these petitioners other than petitioner No. 1 none objected, notice was issued to petitioner No. 1. In the absence of mutation entry in the name of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and 3, it cannot be said that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not acted fairly. We find that the proceedings are bona fide and not colourable. There is no material to show that the powers are exercised with mala fide intention. There is also nothing to show that Special Land Acquisition Officer wilfully refused to give notice as required under Section 9 (3) of the Act so that it can be said that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. . ( 21 ) IT is also required to be observed that when a petition is filed before this Court by a power of attorney holder, then the power of attorney is required to be produced at the time of presentation and also to file a certified copy of the said power of attorney with the application. . ( 21 ) IT is also required to be observed that when a petition is filed before this Court by a power of attorney holder, then the power of attorney is required to be produced at the time of presentation and also to file a certified copy of the said power of attorney with the application. Rule 35 of the Gujarat high Court Rules, 1993 is the relevant rule in this connection, which reads as under:"when an appeal or application or other proceedings is presented by or on behalf of a person purporting to act as a power of attorney on behalf of a party, the power of attorney shall be produced at the time of presentation and file a certified copy of the said power of attorney with an appeal or application or other proceedings as the case may be. "it seems that neither the petitioner nor the learned Advocate for the petitioners have bothered to place the power of attorney on record. The rule says that at the time of presentation of the proceedings, the power of attorney shall be produced and and a certified copy thereof shall be filed with the appeal or application or other proceedings. In the instant case, when we were about to conclude the judgment, learned Advocate for the petitioners produced xerox copies of the three power of attorney and interestingly, these copies are uncertified copies. Learned Counsels for the other side have also made a grievance that copy thereof is not supplied to them. Registry should be more careful when the proceedings are presented and should see to it that if the proceedings are filed by power of attorney-holder, the requirements of Rule 35 is complied with. ( 22 ) IN the light of the aforesaid, we are of the view that there is no substance in this petition and the same is required to be rejected with compensatory cost. Hence, this petition stands rejected with cost, which is quantified at Rs. 20,000/ -. Out of the cost, Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to the Surat municipal Corporation and Rs. 5,000/- shall be deposited with the Legal Aid Committee. Notice discharged. Interim relief stands vacated forthwith. Notice discharged. .