village, one of the modes of publishing notification under Section 6, either before the concerned authority at the time of presenting Section 48 application or presenting the Writ Petition before this Court. According to us, all official acts are presumed to have been done in the normal course of business as mandated in the procedure unless until some rebuttal evidence is brought before the Court. In such a situation, one expects the petitioner not to waste time to raise such objection immediately after publication of award on 21/01/2013. As stated above, only in the year 2017, such idea was entertained by the petitioner, that too without any material on record. Therefore, the insistence of the learned Counsel for petitioner now to call upon the respondent authorities to produce the details pertaining to the publication of notification under Section 6 in the Chawadi after these many years, cannot be entertained. We have gone through the Judgment in the case of Ramrao s/o Pralhadrao Deshmukh (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Maharashtra and others1 . Learned Counsel for petitioner referred to the observations made in para 17 of the said Judgment to contend that Section 11 is beneficial to owners of the land. There is no doubt so far as beneficial legislation by way of amendment being introduced into the Act by Section 11A. It is not in dispute that one of the modes of publication of Section 6 notification is by publication in the village Chawadi. According to the respondent, this was done on 21/04/2011. For the reasons set out above, we do not agree with the said contention of petitioner. In the referred case, there was a glaring material not to act on the last date of publication
