RUSHINDAR DEORAO KHOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALNA AND ORS

                                     1                        1158.odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2026
                  RUSHINDAR DEORAO KHOLE
                               VERSUS
            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                   ...
              Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Y. G. Birajdar
             a/w. Mr. S.S. Jangada and Mr. Shaikh Majit S.
           AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Preeti Diggikar
            Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. R.D. Sanap
                   h/f. Mr. Sadanand Sadashiv Deve
                                  …

                            CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                            DATE : 03rd SEPTEMBER, 2026


PER COURT :

1.           The present Appeal has been filed by the Claimant being

aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 26.08.2016, passed by the

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, in LAR no. 55/1997. The

reference has been rejected on the ground that it has not been filed within

the period of limitation.


2.           Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant submits that

the agricultural land of the Appellant was acquired by the Respondents

out of Gat no. 406 admeasuring 5 Acre 14 R situated at Ambad, Taluka

Ambad, District Jalna, for the purpose of development of industrial area
                                    2                        1158.odt


and possession of the land was taken on 20.01.1993, after passing of the

award on 05.10.1990. The First Appeal was preferred by the Claimant

before this Court. However, First Appeal no. 1914/2011, was remanded

to the reference Court for fresh determination of the issue of enhanced

compensation.


3.          It is further submitted that after the matter was remanded to

the reference Court, the impugned judgment and award has been passed

by the reference Court dismissing the reference solely on the ground that

the reference has been filed beyond period of limitation. It is submitted

that the reference is delayed only by a period of 3 days which ought to

have been considered by the reference Court before rejecting the

reference, considering that the matter had already remanded back to the

reference Court for deciding it on merits for enhancement of

compensation by this Court.


4.          Learned Advocate for the Appellant has placed reliance on

the order passed in the First Appeal no. 1030/2014 dated 17.10.2022,

wherein this Court has set aside the order rejecting the reference, which

was beyond the period of limitation and has directed the reference Court

to decide the matter on merits. According to the Petitioner, the reference

which was under challenge in First Appeal no. 1030/2014, also covers the
                                     3                         1158.odt


land of the appellant which forms part of the same notification.

According to him, the land of the present Appellant was also covered by

the same notification for the acquisition of land which formed subject

matter of First Appeals decided by this Court. However, the present

reference was not part of the said group of First Appeals and it pertains to

some different lands belonging to the same Appellant.


5.           Learned AGP appears for the State. The acquiring body

though served and represented through Advocate, he is not present today.

Even on the last occasion on the ground of unavailability of the counsel,

the matter was adjourned. However, considering that no prejudice is

likely to be caused to the acquiring body if the matter is remanded back

to the reference Court by condoning the delay, the present Appeal is

being taken up for final disposal.


6.           Upon perusal of the order passed by this Court in First

Appeal no. 1030/2014 along with group of Appeals, it is evident that after

taking into consideration the merits of the matter as well as scope of

Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, though

this Court has observed that the reference court has held that there is a

delay of 3 days considering it should have been filed within 60 days, in

fact there is no delay in filing the References. By referring to the letters
                                        4                       1158.odt


given by the Appellant to Respondent no. 2 which were not considered

while computing the delay, this Court has held that the reference court

ought to have considered it while dealing with the period of limitation. In

view thereof, the order passed by the reference Court has been set aside

and the matter is remanded back to grant fresh opportunity to the

Appellants therein.

7.               Thus, even the present matter which pertains to the same

notification, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view, the

present Appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following

order :

                                    ORDER


          i.     The Appeal is partly allowed.


          ii.    The Appeal is remanded back to the learned 2nd Joint

          Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambad, Jalna, for fresh

          consideration by giving opportunity to all the parties and

          decide the reference on its own merits.


          iii.   The parties shall appear before the reference Court on

          30.09.2026.
                                    5                        1158.odt


      iv.    The parties shall appear before the Civil Judge, Senior

      Division, Ambad, District Jalna.


      v.     The reference Court is requested to dispose of the

      reference as early as possible preferably within a period of

      four months.


      vi.    Record and proceedings shall be sent back.


      vii.   First Appeal is accordingly disposed of.




                                    ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




SPC