1 1158.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2026 RUSHINDAR DEORAO KHOLE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Y. G. Birajdar a/w. Mr. S.S. Jangada and Mr. Shaikh Majit S. AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Preeti Diggikar Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. R.D. Sanap h/f. Mr. Sadanand Sadashiv Deve … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 03rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 26.08.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, in LAR no. 55/1997. The reference has been rejected on the ground that it has not been filed within the period of limitation. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant submits that the agricultural land of the Appellant was acquired by the Respondents out of Gat no. 406 admeasuring 5 Acre 14 R situated at Ambad, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna, for the purpose of development of industrial area 2 1158.odt and possession of the land was taken on 20.01.1993, after passing of the award on 05.10.1990. The First Appeal was preferred by the Claimant before this Court. However, First Appeal no. 1914/2011, was remanded to the reference Court for fresh determination of the issue of enhanced compensation. 3. It is further submitted that after the matter was remanded to the reference Court, the impugned judgment and award has been passed by the reference Court dismissing the reference solely on the ground that the reference has been filed beyond period of limitation. It is submitted that the reference is delayed only by a period of 3 days which ought to have been considered by the reference Court before rejecting the reference, considering that the matter had already remanded back to the reference Court for deciding it on merits for enhancement of compensation by this Court. 4. Learned Advocate for the Appellant has placed reliance on the order passed in the First Appeal no. 1030/2014 dated 17.10.2022, wherein this Court has set aside the order rejecting the reference, which was beyond the period of limitation and has directed the reference Court to decide the matter on merits. According to the Petitioner, the reference which was under challenge in First Appeal no. 1030/2014, also covers the 3 1158.odt land of the appellant which forms part of the same notification. According to him, the land of the present Appellant was also covered by the same notification for the acquisition of land which formed subject matter of First Appeals decided by this Court. However, the present reference was not part of the said group of First Appeals and it pertains to some different lands belonging to the same Appellant. 5. Learned AGP appears for the State. The acquiring body though served and represented through Advocate, he is not present today. Even on the last occasion on the ground of unavailability of the counsel, the matter was adjourned. However, considering that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the acquiring body if the matter is remanded back to the reference Court by condoning the delay, the present Appeal is being taken up for final disposal. 6. Upon perusal of the order passed by this Court in First Appeal no. 1030/2014 along with group of Appeals, it is evident that after taking into consideration the merits of the matter as well as scope of Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, though this Court has observed that the reference court has held that there is a delay of 3 days considering it should have been filed within 60 days, in fact there is no delay in filing the References. By referring to the letters 4 1158.odt given by the Appellant to Respondent no. 2 which were not considered while computing the delay, this Court has held that the reference court ought to have considered it while dealing with the period of limitation. In view thereof, the order passed by the reference Court has been set aside and the matter is remanded back to grant fresh opportunity to the Appellants therein. 7. Thus, even the present matter which pertains to the same notification, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view, the present Appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following order : ORDER i. The Appeal is partly allowed. ii. The Appeal is remanded back to the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambad, Jalna, for fresh consideration by giving opportunity to all the parties and decide the reference on its own merits. iii. The parties shall appear before the reference Court on 30.09.2026. 5 1158.odt iv. The parties shall appear before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambad, District Jalna. v. The reference Court is requested to dispose of the reference as early as possible preferably within a period of four months. vi. Record and proceedings shall be sent back. vii. First Appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC