Bombay High Court

MOHAN RAJARAM KARALE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; no remand is ordered.

Summary

The appellants, Mohan Rajaram Karale and another, appealed against a judgment and award dated 29 November 2011 passed by a Reference Court in a land acquisition matter. They claimed that the expert valuation of trees on the acquired land contained an inadvertent mistake regarding the age of the trees, and sought a remand to the Reference Court to correct the valuation. The court noted that the expert’s report, signed by the expert and valuing the trees at Rs.6,34,636, was fully examined and the appellants were aware of its contents. The appellants did not file any application during the reference proceedings to recall the expert or correct the alleged error, and the appeal was filed many years after the reference was instituted in 1993. Considering the lapse of time and the appellants’ failure to raise the issue earlier, the court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it without ordering costs.

Issues considered

Whether the appellate court can remand the Reference Court to reconsider the expert valuation due to an alleged mistake in the report.
Whether the lapse of time and failure to raise the objection during the reference proceedings bar the appellants from obtaining relief.

Subjects

land acquisition
expert valuation
reference court
appeal
remand
procedural lapse
statute of limitations

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:26560
                                               1 of 3                    24-FA.1481.2012



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                24 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1481 OF 2012

                                MOHAN RAJARAM KARALE AND ANR
                                              VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                                 ...
               Mr. Dattatraya R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Appellants.
               Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                                 ...

                                       CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE     :       2nd JULY, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.       Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.


               2.       By the present appeal, the Appellant is aggrieved by the

               judgment and award dated 29.11.2011 passed by the learned

               Reference Court in L.A.R. No.580 of 1993.


               3.       Mr. Jayabhar, learned Advocate for the Appellant/Claimant,

               submits that while deciding the reference, the Appellant had led expert

               evidence regarding the valuation of the trees standing on the acquired

               land. However, due to an inadvertent mistake in the expert's report

               relating to the age of the trees, the valuation was not properly

               considered by the learned Reference Court. He, therefore, submits that

               the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned Reference Court by

               granting one opportunity to the Appellant to prove the correct
                                 2 of 3                 24-FA.1481.2012



valuation.


4.           Learned AGP for the State supports the impugned order and

opposes to remand the matter.

5.           I   have   heard    the      learned   Advocate     for      the

Appellant/Claimant and perused the impugned judgment and award.

The record reveals that the expert, whose valuation report was

produced before the learned Reference Court, was duly examined. The

Appellant was fully aware of the contents of the valuation report.

During his examination-in-chief, which was recorded on 21.09.2011,

the expert specifically deposed that the valuation report had been

prepared by him, bore his signature, and assessed the value of the trees

at Rs.6,34,636/-. The report was duly exhibited before the learned

Reference Court. Thereafter, the reference came to be decided on

29.11.2011.

6.           It is evident that during the pendency of the reference

proceedings, the Appellant did not make any attempt to file an

application before the learned Reference Court seeking recall of the

expert witness or for correcting the alleged mistake in the valuation

report. The Land Acquisition Reference was instituted in the year 1993,

and the present First Appeal came to be filed in the year 2012. The

matter is now taken up for final hearing after a considerable lapse of

time. In these circumstances, when the Appellant had an adequate
                                            3 of 3                 24-FA.1481.2012



          opportunity before the learned Reference Court to seek appropriate

          relief but failed to do so, I am not inclined to remand the matter at this

          belated stage.


          7.        Accordingly, I find no merit in the present appeal. The appeal

          is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.


          8.        Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.



                                              (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…