5-CA-6868-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6868 OF 2025 IN FA/1290/2017 Kaisar Ali Shaukatali VERSUS The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2) Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, Jalgaon And Anr WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1290 OF 2017 Kaisar Ali Shaukatali VERSUS The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2) Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, Jalgaon And Anr ... Mr. Ajeet Kale for the Appellant. Mr. AAA Khan, AGP for State. Mr. Vivek Tarde for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 10 JULY 2026 P. C.: 1. Admit. 2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1999, Appeal is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The land was acquired for public purpose from village Chinchkhede (Bk.), the Section 4 notification was issued on 31st October 1999, possession was taken on 23rd September 2003, notice under Section 12 was served on 18th September 2003 and award was passed on 28th October 2002. The SLAO granted compensation @Rs.67,500/- to Rs.83,000/- per hector. The claimants claimed compensation @Rs.3,00,000/- per hector for jirayat land Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:30547 5-CA-6868-2025.doc whereas the Reference Court granted the same @Rs.1,95,000/- per hector for dry land and Rs.97,500/- per hector for Potkharab land. 4. The Appellants have filed Civil Application No.6868 of 2025 for permission to file on record documents annexed thereto such as electricity bill dated 15th April 2024 and Gav Namuna 7, 7A and 12 stating that these documents are crucial for proper adjudication and just decision of First Appeal. The Appellants prayed to remand the matter to the Reference Court after allowing production thereof. The Appellants further stated that these documents were not available with them during the trial and thus pray for liberty to produce them before the learned Reference Court. 5. Upon considering the submission advanced and perusing the record, it is clear that documents ought to be produced on record are introduced for the first time before this Court. Those documents were not produced before Reference Court which has caused prejudiced to the present Appellants. Thus they pray to remand the matter while allowing production thereof on record. Considering the fact that these documents were not available with the Appellants at the time of trial, to grant them one more opportunity in the interest of justice for arriving at a just and final decision, it is necessary to allow the production thereof on record before this Court. The documents sought to be produced are taken on record. 6. Considering the prayer that production of these documents would change the fate of reference, to grant one more opportunity in the interest of Shubham 5-CA-6868-2025.doc justice, I am inclined to remand the matter to the learned Reference Court for deciding their admissibility. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:- O R D E R i. The First Appeal is partly allowed. ii. The matter is remanded to the learned Reference Court for fresh adjudication upon consideration of documents sought to be produced. iii. The Appellants are at liberty to file an application for leading additional evidence with respect to those documents. 7. However, it is made clear that the Appellants shall not be entitled for interest for the period from decision of the Reference Court i.e. 24th September 2009 till the decision of the Reference Court in remand. 8. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1999, the learned Reference Court is directed to decide the matter within a period of six month from the date of uploading of this order. 9. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham