NAMDEO YADAV BORDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:3781



                                                (1)                       15 FA 411 OF 2022


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                15 FIRST APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2022

                                      NAMDEO YADAV BORDE
                                             VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                                ...
           Mr. Solanke Shikrashna B., Advocate for Appellant
           Mr. N. D. Raje, AGP for Respondent-s/State
           Ms. Asha D. Sherkhane, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                                …

                                           CORAM      : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                                           DATE       : 28.01.2026

           PER COURT :-
           .           Heard both sides finally at the admission stage.


           2.          Appellant is questioning judgment and award dated 19.08.2016

           passed in LAR No.295 of 2010.


           3.          Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client did not

           receive the notice when the proceedings were transferred from Aurangabad to

           Vaijapur. There was no occasion for his client to engage any lawyer or to

           remain present before Civil Judge Senior Division, Vaijapur. It is submitted

           that the appellant has ample evidence to disclose that his land is irrigated

           land. He is also claiming parity in getting the rates in view of the judgments
                                      (2)                     15 FA 411 OF 2022


rendered by the Reference Court LAR Nos.477 of 2010 and 310 of 2010. He

has adverted my attention to compilation tendered on record to show the

entitlement. He would pray to remand the matter to the Reference Court.


4.          Learned counsel appearing for the acquiring body repels the

submissions. It is submitted that the appellant did not avail the opportunity

and lead evidence before the Reference Court and remained persistently

absent. It is further pointed out that even there is delay of about 5 years in

preferring the First Appeal. The Reference Court has taken a reasonable view

and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.


5.          With the able assistance of both the counsels, I have gone through

the record and proceeding as well as judgment and award. Initially, the

reference was pending before learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad

bearing LAR No.576 of 2007. Thereafter, it was transferred to learned Civil

Judge Senior Division, Vaijapur after 17.07.2010. The appellant had engaged

lawyer when the matter was pending at Aurangabad. It reveals from roznama

that the matter was transferred to Court of Vaijapur on 16.11.2010. The

appellant and his lawyer did not remain present. Notices were issued to the

appellant but there is no report of service of notice. For this reason, the

appellant and his lawyer are unable to remain present and ultimately, the
                                      (3)                        15 FA 411 OF 2022


matter was decided on merits by the Reference Court.


6.          There is no material on record to indicate that after transfer of the

matter, the appellant was duly informed. It is submitted by the learned counsel

for the appellant that the lawyer engaged by him when the matter was

pending at Aurangabad ceased to be legal practitioner, as he was selected as a

Judge. The Reference Court should have ascertained as to whether there was

service of notice upon the appellant after transfer of the proceedings.

Impugned judgment does not show any such exercise being done. The

impugned judgment is apparently against the principles of natural justice.


7.          The appellant has placed on record numerous documents for the

first time. The learned counsel has also made submissions that his client is

armed with evidence to make out a case for enhancement of the compensation

and for treating the land as irrigated land. Instead of deciding the matter on

merits, I think it appropriate to remand the matter to the Reference Court.


8.          First Appeal is partly allowed.


9.          Impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside.


10.         The matter is relegated to the Civil Judge, Senior Division
                                      (4)                      15 FA 411 OF 2022


Vaijapur for deciding LAR No.295 of 2010 on its own merits. The Reference

Court shall permit the parties to lead evidence.


11.         The Reference Court shall make endeavor to decide the reference

within a period of eight (8) months from the date of appearance of the parties.


12.         Parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 09.02.2026.


13.         It is made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to the

interest and statutory benefits for the delay caused in filing the First Appeal

i.e. 1258 days.



                                                   ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
PRW