MAHRASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusMARUTI LAXMAN KHEDKAR AND ORS.

                                                                        901-fast25914-2025.doc


                      AGK
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.25914 OF 2025
                                                     WITH
                                     INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5342 OF 2026
                                                     WITH
                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12870 OF 2025
                                                     WITH
                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11772 OF 2025


ATUL                  Maharashtra Krishna Valley
GANESH
KULKARNI              Development Corporation                        … Applicant
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
                                             Vs.
Date: 2026.09.22
18:28:30 +0530             1. Maruti Laxman Khedkar
                           2. The Special Land Acquisition
                              Officer No.6, Pune
                           3. The Collector, Pune                    … Respondents



                      Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil with Mr. Shivkumar J. and Ms.
                      Rupsee Nerlikar for the Appellant/Applicant.
                      Ms. Amrita Kharkar with Ms. Sayali Bhosale i/by P.H.
                      Potnis for Respondent No.1.
                      Mr. A.R. Patil, Advocate. for Respondent Nos.2 and 3-
                      State.


                                                    CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                    DATED    : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
                      P.C.:
                      1.      This First Appeal is filed against the judgment and Award
                      dated 22 March 2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in
                      Land Reference No.16 of 2002.



                                                        1
                                                      901-fast25914-2025.doc


2.      The Appellant was the acquiring body before the Reference
Court. Respondent No.1 was the only claimant in the reference.
The reference was pending and the evidence was still part-heard
when the sole claimant died on 12 November 2016. His legal
representatives were not brought on record before the reference
was finally heard and decided. Even thereafter, the Reference
Court continued with the matter and passed the judgment and
Award dated 22 March 2017 in favour of the deceased claimant.

3.      The Appellant has challenged the Award mainly on the
ground that after the death of the sole claimant, the reference
could     not   have   continued       without   bringing    his     legal
representatives on record. According to the Appellant, the
reference had abated and the Award which was thereafter passed
in favour of a person who was already dead is a nullity. Therefore,
the Appellant seeks setting aside of the judgment and Award and
sending the matter back to the Reference Court for deciding it
afresh after bringing the legal representatives on record.

4.      The learned Advocate appearing for the legal representatives
of the deceased claimant opposed the Appeal. It was submitted
that the Reference Court had jurisdiction over the land acquisition
matter. It was submitted that an Award passed in favour of a
deceased person cannot in every case be treated as a nullity.
According to the learned Advocate, there is difference between an
order passed against a dead person and an order passed in favour
of a person who died during the proceeding. It was submitted that
the legal representatives are entitled to get the benefit of the
Award.



                                   2
                                                    901-fast25914-2025.doc


5.    Therefore, the question is not only whether the claimant had
died before the Award was passed. The Court has to see what
happened to the reference after his death, whether his legal
representatives were required to be brought on record, what
happened because they were not brought on record and what is
the legal effect of the Award which was thereafter passed in favour
of the deceased claimant.

6.    This Court, while deciding Interim Application No.11731 of
2025, has already considered the issue in detail and assigned
reasons as to why the impugned Award is a nullity. Therefore, to
avoid repeating the same discussion and duplication of reasons, it
is not necessary to give fresh reasons for reaching the same
conclusion in the present proceedings.

7.    There was only one claimant. He died on 12 November
2016. His evidence was still part-heard. His legal representatives
were not brought on record. Therefore, after his death there was
no claimant before the Reference Court who could continue the
reference. The reference therefore could not continue as if the
original claimant was alive.

8.    I therefore hold that the judgment and Award dated 22
March 2017 passed in Land Reference No.16 of 2002 is a nullity. It
was passed after the sole claimant died on 12 November 2016,
when his evidence was still part-heard, without bringing his legal
representatives on record and without first taking steps for setting
aside the abatement.




                                 3
                                                    901-fast25914-2025.doc


9.    Merely because the Award is a nullity, it does not mean that
the original land acquisition reference has to end. The right of the
deceased claimant to continue the claim can survive in his legal
representatives, subject to their rights being decided according to
law. The proper course is therefore to set aside the judgment and
Award and send the reference back to the Reference Court from
the stage when the claimant died.

10.   The Reference      Court will therefore bring        the legal
representatives of the deceased claimant on record and thereafter
continue the proceedings. Since the evidence was part-heard on
the date of death, the Reference Court shall continue the
proceedings from that stage.

11.   The legal representatives shall be given proper opportunity
to continue the evidence of the deceased claimant as may be
permitted by law. The Appellant acquiring body shall get
opportunity to deal with such evidence and to lead further
evidence.

12.   The Reference Court shall thereafter decide the reference
afresh on its own merits and according to law. Nothing stated in
this judgment shall be treated as a finding about the actual
amount of compensation payable. All questions regarding market
value, entitlement, amount of compensation, interest and other
related reliefs are kept open.

13.   There is one more matter which requires consideration. It is
stated that the legal representatives of the deceased claimant have
already withdrawn the amount deposited pursuant to the




                                 4
                                                    901-fast25914-2025.doc


impugned judgment and Award.

14.   Normally, after setting aside an Award, the Court may have
to consider what should happen to the amount already paid. But in
the present case, the Award is being set aside because the sole
claimant had died before the hearing was completed and his legal
representatives were not brought on record. This Court has not
decided that the deceased claimant or his legal representatives
were not entitled to compensation. What amount is finally payable
to the legal representatives has to be decided by the Reference
Court after the reference is continued and decided. At this stage,
therefore, it would not be proper to direct recovery of the amount
already withdrawn.

15.   Therefore, the amount already withdrawn by the legal
representatives of the deceased claimant shall not be recovered
from them at this stage. The said amount shall remain subject to
the fresh judgment and Award which will be passed by the
Reference Court after remand. If, after fresh hearing, the Reference
Court finds that the legal representatives are entitled to the whole
or part of the amount already withdrawn, the same shall be
adjusted accordingly. If the Reference Court finds that any amount
is required to be recovered, it may pass appropriate consequential
directions according to law.

16.   For these reasons, the Appeal is required to be allowed. The
judgment and Award dated 22 March 2017 is required to be set
aside and the reference is required to be sent back to the Reference
Court from the stage at which the sole claimant died.




                                 5
                                                          901-fast25914-2025.doc


17.   The following order is therefore passed:

      (i)    The First Appeal is allowed;

      (ii)   The judgment and Award dated 22 March 2017 passed
      by the learned District Judge, Pune in Land Reference No.16
      of 2002 is set aside;

      (iii) Land Reference No.16 of 2002 is restored to the file of
      the    learned   Reference   Court    for   fresh      consideration
      according to law;

      (iv) The legal representatives of the deceased sole claimant,
      who died on 12 November 2016, shall be permitted to be
      brought on record and to continue the reference according to
      law;

      (v)    The Reference Court shall continue the proceedings
      from the stage at which the sole claimant died on 12
      November 2016, when the evidence was part-heard;

      (vi) The legal representatives of the deceased claimant shall
      be given opportunity to continue the proceedings and
      evidence according to law. The Appellant shall be given
      proper opportunity to contest the claim, cross-examine
      witnesses, if required, and lead further evidence as may be
      permitted by law;

      (vii) The Reference Court shall decide the reference afresh
      on its own merits and according to law. It shall not be
      influenced by the findings in the judgment and Award which
      is set aside by this judgment;




                                   6
                                                901-fast25914-2025.doc


(viii) All questions regarding market value, amount of
compensation, interest and other consequential benefits are
kept open for decision by the Reference Court;

(ix) The legal representatives of the deceased claimant
have already withdrawn the amount deposited pursuant to
the impugned judgment and Award. Having regard to the
facts of the case, the said amount shall not be recovered
from the legal representatives of the deceased claimant at
this stage;

(x)   The amount already withdrawn shall remain subject to
the final judgment and Award to be passed by the Reference
Court after remand. The Reference Court shall give
appropriate adjustment or credit for the amount already
withdrawn while passing the fresh Award and shall pass
consequential directions, if required, according to its final
decision;

(xi) The Reference Court shall make an endeavour to
decide the reference as early as possible and preferably
within six months from the date on which the legal
representatives of the deceased claimant are brought on
record, subject to cooperation of both sides;

(xii) The parties shall appear before the learned Reference
Court on 5th October 2026. No fresh notice or reference shall
be necessary;

(xiii) The First Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.




                           7
                                               901-fast25914-2025.doc


(xiv) All pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

                                        (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                            8