Bombay High Court

MADHUSUDAN BHARTI GURU ACHUT BHARTI THORUGH SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY NILESH NARSINGRAO PAWADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Court quashed the judgment and award and restored the reference, allowing the parties to present evidence and directing expeditious disposal.

Summary

The petitioner, whose land was acquired, challenged the judgment and award dated 1 October 2019 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, which dismissed his reference (L.A.R. No.26 of 2010) for failure to prosecute. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court alleging inordinate delay but offered to forego interest and sought a chance to present evidence. The Court noted the delay but, following the reasoning in Walmik Trimbak Tupe v. State, decided to grant the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute the reference. It quashed the impugned judgment and award, restored the reference to its original position, and ordered the parties to appear before the Reference Court on 9 February 2026 with permission to lead oral and documentary evidence. The Reference Court was directed to dispose of the land‑acquisition reference within six months, and the writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can set aside the dismissal of a land‑acquisition reference on the ground of non‑prosecution despite the petitioner's delay in filing the writ petition.
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to lead evidence and prosecute the reference after the lapse of time.
Whether the judgment and award dated 1 October 2019 can be quashed and the reference restored to its original position.

Subjects

land acquisition
writ petition
reference court
delay
quashing judgment
evidence
expeditious disposal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:493-DB
1 of 3 999-WP.3763.2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

999 WRIT PETITION NO. 3763 OF 2021

MADHUSUDAN BHARTI GURU ACHUT BHARTI THORUGH SPECIAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY NILESH NARSINGRAO PAWADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. M. D. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent-State.
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 8th JANUARY, 2026

P.C.:-

1. Heard both the sides.

2. The petitioner is taking an exception to the judgment and

award dated 01.10.2019 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Nanded in L.A.R. No.26 of 2010, thereby dismissing the

reference in the absence of the Petitioner.

3. Petitioner is the claimant whose land was acquired and

award was passed on 01.10.2019. Being aggrieved, they preferred

L.A.R. No. 26 of 2010, Petitioner did not adduce any oral or

documentary evidence before the Reference Court. They did not

punctually prosecute the reference and in there absence, reference was

dismissed by the impugned judgment and award.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is relying on the judgment

Tauseef
2 of 3 999-WP.3763.2021

dated 17.01.2020 passed by the coordinate bench in the matter of

Walmik Trimbak Tupe Vs. State and Another in Writ Petition

No.1279/2019 and the connected matters. He would pray to pass

similar order in the present petition.

5. Learned AGP Mr. A. D. Wange vehemently opposes the

submission of the Petitioner. He would submit that Petitioner is the

fence sitter. After the impugned judgment and award, there is

inordinate delay for them to file the writ petition in High Court. There

is no convincing and plausible explanation for the inordinate delay.

Learned Reference Court has rightly rejected the reference on merit. He

would therefore pray to dismiss the petition.

6. The Petitioner did not adduce evidence when there reference

was pending. They failed to prosecute it diligently. Present petition is

filed on 23.01.2020. However the Petitioner wants to lead evidence

and prosecute the matter on merits. As it is the matter of acquisition of

the land, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity. Besides that, I

propose to follow the same reasons and the course as done by the

coordinate bench in the matter of Walmik Trimbak Tupe (supra).

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits

that his client is ready to forego interest from 01.10.2019 to

08.01.2026. This statement is accepted for relegating the parties to the

Tauseef
3 of 3 999-WP.3763.2021

Reference Court. I, therefore, pass following order :

ORDER

(i) The judgment and award dated 01.10.2019 passed by

learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in

L.A.R. No.26 of 2010 is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The parties are relegated to the Reference Court by

restoring L.A.R. No.26 of 2010 to its original position.

Petitioner shall appear before the Reference Court on

09.02.2026.

(iii) The concerned Reference Court shall permit the parties

to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of

their rival contentions.

(iv) The Reference Court shall dispose of Land Acquisition

Reference as expeditiously as possible and preferable

within period of six months from 09.02.2026.

(v) The Petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious disposal

of the Reference Petition.

(vi) Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…