Bombay High Court
KAISAR ALI SHAUKATALIversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (2) UPPER TAPI PROJECT, HATNUR, JALGAON AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed and the matter is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication on the basis of the newly produced documents, with no entitlement to interest.
Summary
The case concerns a land acquisition proceeding initiated in 1999 for a public purpose in Chinchkhede village, where the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation ranging from Rs.67,500 to Rs.83,000 per hectare, while claimants sought higher amounts. The appellants filed Civil Application No. 6868 of 2025 seeking permission to introduce new documents, including an electricity bill and land records, which were not presented before the Reference Court and allegedly prejudiced their case. The High Court examined the submissions and found that the fresh documents could materially affect the outcome, and therefore allowed their production on record. The Court partially allowed the first appeal, remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication on the basis of the newly produced documents, and permitted the appellants to file further applications for additional evidence. It also clarified that the appellants are not entitled to interest for the period between the original Reference Court decision and the remanded decision, and directed the Reference Court to decide within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether newly discovered documents can be introduced at the appellate stage in a land acquisition compensation dispute
- Whether the appellate court can remand the matter to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication
- Whether the appellants are entitled to interest for the period between the original and remanded decisions
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 12, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- admissibility of evidence
- remand
- interest
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:30547
5-CA-6868-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
5 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6868 OF 2025
IN FA/1290/2017
Kaisar Ali Shaukatali
VERSUS
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2) Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, Jalgaon
And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1290 OF 2017
Kaisar Ali Shaukatali
VERSUS
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2) Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, Jalgaon
And Anr
...
Mr. Ajeet Kale for the Appellant.
Mr. AAA Khan, AGP for State.
Mr. Vivek Tarde for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 10 JULY 2026
P. C.:
1. Admit.
2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1999, Appeal is heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. The land was acquired for public purpose from village Chinchkhede
(Bk.), the Section 4 notification was issued on 31st October 1999, possession
was taken on 23rd September 2003, notice under Section 12 was served on
18th September 2003 and award was passed on 28 th October 2002. The
SLAO granted compensation @Rs.67,500/- to Rs.83,000/- per hector. The
claimants claimed compensation @Rs.3,00,000/- per hector for jirayat land
Shubham Page 1 of 3
5-CA-6868-2025.doc
whereas the Reference Court granted the same @Rs.1,95,000/- per hector
for dry land and Rs.97,500/- per hector for Potkharab land.
4. The Appellants have filed Civil Application No.6868 of 2025 for
permission to file on record documents annexed thereto such as electricity
bill dated 15th April 2024 and Gav Namuna 7, 7A and 12 stating that these
documents are crucial for proper adjudication and just decision of First
Appeal. The Appellants prayed to remand the matter to the Reference Court
after allowing production thereof. The Appellants further stated that these
documents were not available with them during the trial and thus pray for
liberty to produce them before the learned Reference Court.
5. Upon considering the submission advanced and perusing the record, it
is clear that documents ought to be produced on record are introduced for
the first time before this Court. Those documents were not produced before
Reference Court which has caused prejudiced to the present Appellants.
Thus they pray to remand the matter while allowing production thereof on
record. Considering the fact that these documents were not available with
the Appellants at the time of trial, to grant them one more opportunity in
the interest of justice for arriving at a just and final decision, it is necessary
to allow the production thereof on record before this Court. The documents
sought to be produced are taken on record.
6. Considering the prayer that production of these documents would
change the fate of reference, to grant one more opportunity in the interest of
Shubham Page 2 of 3
5-CA-6868-2025.doc
justice, I am inclined to remand the matter to the learned Reference Court
for deciding their admissibility. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order:-
ORDER
i. The First Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The matter is remanded to the learned Reference Court for fresh
adjudication upon consideration of documents sought to be produced.
iii. The Appellants are at liberty to file an application for leading
additional evidence with respect to those documents.
7. However, it is made clear that the Appellants shall not be entitled for
interest for the period from decision of the Reference Court i.e. 24 th
September 2009 till the decision of the Reference Court in remand.
8. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1999, the learned
Reference Court is directed to decide the matter within a period of six
month from the date of uploading of this order.
9. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…