Bombay High Court
KUSHAVARTA W/O DATTA PALVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
Ex parte orders against the acquiring authority are void and must be set aside, with the matter remanded for a fresh hearing.
Summary
The Zilla Parishad Jalna challenged several ex parte judgments of the reference court concerning land acquisition proceedings dating back to 2002. The appellant argued that it had been served but the reference court proceeded without its participation, rendering the orders void. The High Court observed that the acquiring authority must ultimately pay compensation and that the ex parte orders were procedurally defective. Consequently, the court quashed the reference court's judgments and ordered the matters to be reheard afresh within six weeks. The appeals were disposed, and any amounts deposited were to be transferred with interest to the reference court for the fresh determination.
Issues considered
- Whether the ex parte judgments passed by the reference court against the Zilla Parishad are valid.
- Whether such ex parte orders should be set aside and the matters remanded for fresh hearing.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- ex parte proceedings
- procedural fairness
- compensation
- quashing of orders
- remand
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:32084
FA 449/16 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
28 FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 446 OF 2016
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 448 OF 2016
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2016
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2165 OF 2022
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2159 OF 2022
...
ZILHA PARISHAD JALNA THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ORS
VERSUS
DATTA KONDIBA PALWE
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. R.B. Dhaware
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. A.H. Koralkar
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 27, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Admit.
2. As the acquisition proceedings are of the year 2002, heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. By the present appeals, the appellant/Zilla Parishad is challenging
the judgments and orders of the reference court in LAR Nos. 2510/2010
dated 4.3.2014, 2594/2010 dated 5.3.2014, 135/2010 and 27/2010 dated
3.10.2011 on the ground that the matters were decided exparte against
the appellant.
4. It was brought to my notice that though the appellant/acquiring
body/Zilla Parishad was served, the above LARs were proceeded exparte
against it before the reference court. It needs to be noted that ultimately
FA 449/16 & Ors.
2
the acquiring body needs to pay the compensation to the claimants.
Therefore, without going in to the merits of the matters, I deem it
appropriate to remand the matters back to the reference court to decide
the same afresh within a period of six weeks.
5. In view of the above, the judgments and orders passed by the
reference court in LAR Nos. 2510/2010 dated 4.3.2014, 2594/2010 dated
5.3.2014, 135/2010 and 27/2010 dated 3.10.2011 are quashed and set
side. Consequently, the appeals filed by the original claimants for
enhancement are also disposed of accordingly.
6. The amount, if any, deposited in this court be transmitted to the
reference court with interest accrued thereon.
7. The reference court is directed to decide the above land acquisition
references within a period of six weeks.
8. Parties to appear before the reference court on 10.8.2026.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant undertakes that he will instruct
to Zilla Parishad to appear through the counsel before the reference court
on the above date.
10. All points are kept open.
11. The present appeals are disposed of accordingly.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…