Bombay High Court
THE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO.1, JALNAversusGANPAT S/O BHIKA KHARAT AND ORS.
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The High Court quashed the Reference Court's award, remanded the matters for fresh determination, and denied claimants interest and statutory benefits for the intervening period.
Summary
The Executive Engineer (Minor Irrigation Division, Jalna) appealed against awards of the Reference Court in several land‑acquisition matters where claimants sought compensation. The claimants filed applications for additional evidence, alleging the presence of trees on the land, and the acquiring body objected, arguing that a blanket remand would invite false claims and that claimants should not receive interest or statutory benefits for the delay. The High Court examined the rival submissions, noted the considerable delay attributable to the claimants, and held that the Reference Court's judgment and award must be set aside. The Court ordered the matters to be remanded to the Reference Court for fresh determination, keeping all objections open, and barred claimants from claiming interest or statutory benefits from the date of the earlier award until December 2025. The appeal was allowed in part and the civil applications for additional documents and review were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court's award in the land‑acquisition proceedings should be quashed and the matters remanded for fresh determination.
- Whether claimants are entitled to interest and statutory benefits for the period between the Reference Court's award and the present order.
- Whether applications for additional evidence filed after a delay can be entertained.
- Whether the acquiring body may raise objections and the Reference Court may examine the genuineness of the claimants' assertions.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- additional evidence
- interest
- statutory benefits
- remand
- reference court
- review application
- delay
- quashing of judgment
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:17527
1 938 ca 14159.25 with others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14159 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13534 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2334 OF 2022
The Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna .. Applicant
Versus
Sakharam Madhav Kharat and others .. Respondents
Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14166 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13535 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2338 OF 2022
The Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna .. Applicant
Versus
Maroti Bhika Kharat and others .. Respondents
Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14165 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13550 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2323 OF 2022
2 938 ca 14159.25 with others
The Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna .. Applicant
Versus
Gautam Trimbak Ragde and others .. Respondents
Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14164 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13450 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4239 OF 2022
The Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna .. Applicant
Versus
Ganpat Bhika Kharat and others .. Respondents
Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3715 OF 2022
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14045 OF 2025
Sandu Rustum Kharat and others .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
WITH
3 938 ca 14159.25 with others
FIRST APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14048 OF 2025
Vasant Bhagaji Ragde and others .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1751 OF 2023
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13337 OF 2025
Uttam Daulat Kharat .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate h/f Shri Arun H. Koralkar,
Advocate for the Appellant.
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Ruturaj C. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14043 OF 2025
Bhika Shripat Kharat
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Rukhmanbai died through L.Rs.
Maroti and another .. Appellants
Versus
The Executive Engineer Minor
Irrigation Division Jalna .. Respondents
Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Appellants.
4 938 ca 14159.25 with others
Shri Shrirang S. Dande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2026.
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both sides.
2. These matters can be decided together because there are
common facts and legal issues involved. In following matters by
common order dated 11th December, 2025, first appeals were
partly allowed remanding the matters to the Reference Court.
I First Appeal No. 2334 of 2022
II First Appeal No. 2338 of 2022
III First Appeal No. 2323 of 2022
IV First Appeal No. 4239 of 2022
3. The acquiring body has taken exception to the common
order dated 11.12.2025 by preferring review application, pointing
out mistake apparent on the face of record that the direction to
decide matters afresh which is incorporated in para No. 5(B)
would enlarge the scope unnecessarily and that is likely to be
misused by pressing into service concocted or fictitious claim.
4. In following matters appellants are claiming remand of the
matters in view of filing of applications for additional evidence.
5 938 ca 14159.25 with others
i) First Appeal No. 3715 of 2022
ii) First Appeal No. 22 of 2026
iii) First Appeal No. 1751 of 2023
iv) First Appeal No. 23 of 2026
It is contended that the same course as is done in earlier matters
by passing common order dated 11.12.2025 be adopted.
5. The common thread of submissions of the learned counsel
Mr. Humbe in all these matters is that there were trees in the
lands under acquisition and his clients are armed with evidence
to that effect. They have preferred civil applications for
additional evidence, which needs objective scrutiny. This Court
has rightly remanded the matters so as to enable the
appellants/claimants to place on record addition evidence, which
course needs to be followed in remaining matters also. It is
further candidly submitted that his clients are ready to give up
interest and statutory benefits for limited duration.
6. Per contra, Mr. Dande and Mr. Ruturaj Patil, learned
counsels appearing for the respondent – acquiring body in first
appeals and for the review applicant would vehemently point out
that blanket order of remand would create obligations and would
pave way to false and concocted claims for enhancement. The
original pleading and the evidence also needs to be taken into
account besides additional evidence. The plea and objections to
be raised by the acquiring body need to be kept open. It is
6 938 ca 14159.25 with others
further pointed out that the appellants – claimants are not
entitled to interest and statutory benefits from the date of
decision of the Reference Court till the order passed by this Court
as the lapses are attributable to the appellants – claimants.
7. I have considered the rival submissions of the parities and
the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Reference
Court. I have also gone through the common order under review
dated 11th December, 2025.
8. Appellants – claimants filed applications for additional
evidence and stated that they were armed with necessary
material which promoted this Court to pass order of remand. It
is apparent on the face of record that order under review is likely
to be misconstrued and likely to be misused by pressing into
service false or concocted claims. It needs to be guarded or
clarified. The objection raised by the learned counsels for the
respondent – acquiring body cannot be said to be misplaced. It
would be open for the Reference Court to test genuineness of the
claim to the touch stone of earlier pleading and evidence, besides
new pleadings and material.
9. The applicants have preferred applications for additional
evidence on different dates in this Court in December 2025. The
first appeals filed by them were accompanied by applications for
condonation of delay. The delay was condoned. They could have
filed these applications immediately after filing of first appeals.
7 938 ca 14159.25 with others
There is considerable delay from filing of the appeals and filing of
the applications for additional evidence. The lapses are
attributable to them. It is trite law that the statutory benefits
would be forfeited in case appeals are preferred belatedly. In
that view of the matter, appellants – claimants shall not be
entitled to interest and statutory benefits from the date of
impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court till
December 2025.
10. For the reasons stated above, I pass following order.
ORDER
A. First appeals are allowed partly.
B. Impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court are quashed and set aside and matters are relegated to the
Reference Court to decide them afresh on their own merits.
C. All points are kept open.
D. The Reference Court shall consider the objections to be
raised by the acquiring body as is permissible in law and shall
examine the genuineness of the claim on their own merits.
E. Appellants – claimants shall not be entitled to claim
interest and statutory benefits from the date of earlier judgment
and award passed by the Reference Court till December 2025.
8 938 ca 14159.25 with others
F. Parties shall appear before the Reference Court on
05.05.2026.
G. The Reference Court shall decide the matters
expeditiously.
H. Civil applications for production of additional documents
are disposed of.
I. It will be open for the Reference Court to consider earlier
pleadings and the evidence on record in-justa position with the
subsequent pleadings and evidence.
J. The civil applications for review filed by the acquiring body
are disposed of in view of above directions.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/April 26
Checking your session…