Bombay High Court

ANANDA RAMA KHANDARE (DIED) THR LRS MANIKRAO AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The appeal is disposed and the matter is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration, allowing the Acquiring Body to file a reply.

Summary

The appellants challenged the Reference Court's classification of their land as semi‑irrigated despite evidence of two wells, and contested the reduction of compensation for fruit‑bearing trees. They argued that the valuation of the trees was uncontroverted and that, per precedent, they were entitled to 80% of the assessed value. The Acquiring Body, having missed the earlier trial, sought permission to participate and present its case. The High Court accepted the request, finding that procedural fairness required a fresh trial where both parties could be heard. Consequently, the appeal was disposed and the matter remanded to the Reference Court for a fresh determination, with the Acquiring Body allowed to file a reply and a deadline of twelve months for conclusion.

Issues considered

Whether the Reference Court erred in categorising the land as semi‑irrigated despite evidence of two wells.
Whether compensation for fruit‑bearing trees should be fixed at 80% of the uncontroverted valuation.
Whether the Acquiring Body should be permitted to participate in the trial despite having missed the earlier opportunity.

Subjects

land valuation
semi‑irrigated land
fruit bearing trees
compensation
reference court
remand
procedural fairness
acquisition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38437

                                                     1
                                                                    950-fa-1903-2021

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1903 OF 2021

                      Ananda Rama Khandare (died) Thr Lrs Manikrao And Ors
                                                VERSUS
                                   The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
                                                   ...
                     Mr. A. H. Koralkar, Advocate for Appellants
                     Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Respondents-State
                     Ms. P. A. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent no.3
                                                  …..
                                          CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                            DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     1.        After hearing at length, Mr. A. H. Koralkar, learned

                     Advocate for the appellants submits that the matter be

                     remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration on

                     two counts. He would submit that at one stage, the Reference

                     Court has clearly observed that there were two wells in the

                     subject matter land. However, for no reason the Reference

                     Court has subsequently categorized the subject matter land as

                     semi irrigated. He points out that the Reference Court has

                     relied upon the sale deed pertaining to land situated in the

                     same village which was semi irrigated, and accordingly,

                     determined the valuation holding appellants’ land as semi

                     irrigated.
                                2
                                                950-fa-1903-2021

2.    He    would    further   submit   that   so   far   as   the

compensation towards fruit bearing trees is concerned, the

appellants had examined a valuer, who placed on record

correct valuation of the trees. The prevailing prices of the

fruits were also duly proved by examining an official from the

local APMC. He would submit that the Acquiring Body chose

not to participate in the trial, and hence the Reference court

was not justified in unnecessarily reducing the compensation

towards the trees. He would further submit that, consistently

this Court has taken that where the valuation of the trees has

remained uncontroverted during the trial, compensation

ought to be awarded to the extent of 80% of the valuation

assessed for the trees.

3.    To this, Ms. P. A. Deshpande, learned Advocate

representing the Acquiring Body would submit that due to

oversight, the matter remained unattended by the Acquiring

Body before the Reference Court, and consequently the

Acquiring Body lost the opportunity to contest the claim both

on pleadings and evidence. She submits that an opportunity

be given to the Acquiring Body to participate in the trial

proceeding so that correct compensation would be awarded to

the claimants.
                                3
                                                 950-fa-1903-2021

4.      Accepting the request, Mr. A. H. Koralkar, learned

Advocate for the claimants fairly agrees for such submission.

5.      In view of the above, First Appeal stands disposed of.

The matter is relegated back to the Reference Court for

deciding the claim afresh.

6.      The parties would appear before the Reference Court on

01.09.2026. The Acquiring Body is permitted to file reply.

7.      The Reference Court is requested to conclude the Trial

within a period of 12 (Twelve) months from the date of

appearance of the parties.

8.      It is made clear that the claimants shall not be entitled

for the interest on delayed period.



                                    ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…