( 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 2026:BHC-AUG:3781 ( 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