{1}

fa452717.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 4527 OF 2017

Vinayak s/o Babasaheb Pote,

age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kirtapur, Tq. Mantha,

District Jalna.

Appellant

Versus

01 The State of Maharashtra,

through the Collector, Jalna.

02 The Special Land Acquisition

Offcer Minor Irrigation Diiision),

Kirtapur Percolation Tank Project,

Jalna.

03 The Executiie Engineer,

Minor Irrigation Diiision Local

Sector), Kirtapur Percolation

Tank No.1, Jalna.

Respondents

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO. 4528 OF 2017

Vishnu @ Bhagwan s/o Sambhaji Kendre,

age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kirtapur, Tq. Mantha,

District Jalna.

Appellant

Versus

01 The State of Maharashtra,

through the Collector, Jalna.

02 The Special Land Acquisition

Offcer Minor Irrigation Diiision),

{2}

fa452717.odt

Kirtapur Percolation Tank Project,

Jalna.

03 The Executiie Engineer,

Minor Irrigation Diiision Local

Sector), Kirtapur Percolation

Tank No.1, Jalna.

Respondents

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO. 4462 OF 2017

Gajanan s/o Babasaheb Pote,

age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kirtapur, Tq. Mantha,

District Jalna.

Appellant

Versus

01 The State of Maharashtra,

through the Collector, Jalna.

02 The Special Land Acquisition

Offcer Minor Irrigation Diiision),

Kirtapur Percolation Tank Project,

Jalna.

03 The Executiie Engineer,

Minor Irrigation Diiision Local

Sector), Kirtapur Percolation

Tank No.1, Jalna.

Respondents

Mr. Ajay Shinde, adiocate for the Appellants.

Mr. A, A. Jagatkar, AGP for the Respondents.

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

Reseried on : 17^th August, 2022.

Pronounced on : 07^th September, 2022.

{3}

fa452717.odt

JUDGMENT :

1

All the appellants, in these appeals, haie

challenged the judgments and awards dated 28^th July, 2016,

passed by the learned 4^th Joint Ciiil Judge, Senior Diiision,

Jalna herein after referred to as “the Reference Court”) in

their respectiie Land Acquisition References bearing Nos.

258/2010 Old LAR No. 121/2008), 330/2010 Old LAR No.

100/2008) and 767/2010 Old LAR No. 100/2008).

2

The learned Counsel for the appellants submits

that the learned Reference Court has dismissed the aforesaid

References as the appellants could not lead any eiidence in

their respectiie Land Acquisition Reference Cases and,

therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Reference Court

has decided all these Reference Cases on merits. Thus, the

learned Counsel for the appellants submits that all these

appeals are required to be allowed partly and the matters

need to be remanded back for fresh decision. He further

submits that this Court, in bunch of Writ Petitions, bearing

W. P. No. 12795 of 2019 along with other connected petitions,

{4}

fa452717.odt

by referring to the iarious judgments of this Court and the

Hon’ble Apex Court, has taken a similar iiew while passing

judgment dated 17.01.2020. Thus, he prayed for passing

similar order.

3

On the contrary, the learned AGP, though strongly

opposed the contention of the learned Counsel for the

appellants, but in the alternatiie, submitted that since there

was no opportunity for the appellants before the learned

Reference Court to lead eiidence, remand order may be

passed.

4

Heard riial submissions and also perused the

record including impugned judgments and awards.

5

It is signifcant to note that on perusal of all the

impugned judgments, it is clearly eiident that in all the La