Bombay High Court

SALUBAI BAPPAJI AAGE DIED THROUGH L.RS SAKUBAI UTTAM PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SANJAY A DESHMUKH

Holding

The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the reference is remanded with the acquiring body added as a party.

Summary

The appellant, Salubai Bappaji (deceased), appealed against a 2006 judgment and award of the Land Reference Court, Beed (L.A.R. No.91 of 1995). The appellant argued that, as in several similar appeals, the acquiring body (Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation) had not been made a party before the Reference Court, leading to remand in those cases. Relying on earlier judgments of this Court, the bench agreed that the same procedural defect existed here. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the Land Reference Court for a fresh decision, directing that the acquiring body be added as a respondent and that both sides be given an opportunity to lead additional evidence. The court also imposed timelines for filing statements, conducting hearings, and concluding the trial.

Issues considered

Whether the acquiring body must be made a party before the Land Reference Court in land acquisition reference proceedings
Whether the appeal should be remanded for a fresh decision in view of the procedural omission

Subjects

Land Reference Court
land acquisition
procedure
party addition
remand
fresh decision
evidence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:9835

21(1) FA NO. 450 OF 2008.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
21 FIRST APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2008

Salubai Bappaji Aage Died Through L.rs Sakubai Uttam Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
...
Mr. C. V. Thombare h/for Ms. Amita D. Chate, Advocate for
Appellant
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State
….

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 04.03.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and

award dated 09.01.2006 passed by the learned Land Reference

Court, Beed in L.A.R. No.91 of 1995.

2. The learned AGP and the learned advocate for the

appellants/claimants submitted that in several other appeals

arising out of the same notification and award, the matters have

been remanded to the Reference Court. They relied upon the

judgments and orders passed in First Appeal No.189 of 2012

dated 23.07.2012, First Appeal (Stamp) No.14737 of 2010 dated

23.10.2015, First Appeal No.2680 of 2018 and connected matters

dated 26.09.2018, First Appeal No.531 of 2016 dated 12.12.2018,

and First Appeal No.280 of 2014 and connected matters dated

1 of 3
(( 2 )) 21(1) FA NO. 450 OF 2008

11.12.2019. It is submitted that since the acquiring body was not

made a party before the Reference Court, those appeals were

remanded. Therefore, the same course deserves to be adopted in the

present appeal.

3. In view of the joint statement made by the learned

advocate for the claimants and the learned AGP and considering the

earlier judgments and orders passed by this Court, the appeal

deserves to be allowed on condition to file written statement within

two weeks from receiving of copy of this judgment and expeditious

hearing and decision within six months. Hence, the following order:

::ORDER::

I. The first appeal is allowed.
II. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned
Land Reference Court, Beed in L.A.R. No.91 of 1995 is set
aside.
III. The reference is remanded to the Land Reference Court for
fresh decision with condition to add the Godawari
Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation
(G.M.I.D.C.), the acquiring body, as a party respondent and
granting both the sides an opportunity to lead evidence and
additional evidence within a week. The Appellant shall
add the said corporation by amending the said Reference
application in reference proceedings.

2 of 3
(( 3 )) 21(1) FA NO. 450 OF 2008

IV. The acquiring body shall file written statement, if any
within two weeks of receiving of judgment by trial court
and pray for permission to cross-examine the witnesses and
adduce evidence. The claimant shall also be entitled to
adduce additional evidence, if any.
V. The Reference Court is directed to conclude the trial within
a period of six months from today by keeping the matter at
least twice a week after one month from today.
VI. Learned advocate for the appellant shall communicate this
order to the concerned Trial Court.
VII. If the evidence adduced by the claimant, either oral or
documentary, is torned down, then the claimant shall be
entitled to adduce fresh evidence.
VIII. The parties to appear before the reference Court on
18.03.2026.
IX. The advocates of both sides are directed to communicate
this judgment to their clients within a week.

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav

3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…