Damodhar Narayan Kanakdande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Damodhar Narayan Kanakdande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both Civil Application No. 2646 of 2022 and Civil Application No. 2477 of 2022 in FAST/477/2020 allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C' — widow Pratibha and son Mahindra brought on record as legal heirs of deceased Claimant No. 2 Balkrishna s/o Narayanrao Kanakdande (with undertaking to file a Competent Court heirship certificate), and condonation of the 1490 days' delay in preferring the First Appeal (following from allowing CA 2477/2022, filed solely for that purpose) — but without interest or statutory benefits for the delayed period; copy of the order to be kept along with the Appeal memo.

Issue for consideration

Whether the widow and son of deceased Applicant/Claimant No. 2 – Balkrishna s/o Narayanrao Kanakdande can be brought on record as his legal heirs in the pending First Appeal. +1 more

Court's answer

Both the Applications (Civil Application No. 2646 of 2022 for bringing legal heirs on record and Civil Application No. 2477 of 2022 for condonation of delay) are allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C' thereof, on the reasons stated in the Applications.

Ratio / Principle

Since the real brother of the deceased Balkrishna / Claimant No. 2 was already on record when the Judgment and Award was passed, the entire Award cannot be said to be a nullity in law.

Key takeaways

The applicants shall not be entitled to interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period caused in preferring the Appeal.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Neeraj P. Dhote, J. (08.04.2025): Allowed two civil applications in pending First Appeal FAST/477/2020 arising from a land acquisition Reference preferred by Damodhar Narayan Kanakdande (Claimant No. 1) and Balkrishna s/o Narayanrao Kanakdande (Claimant No. 2), who died before the Award was passed. CA 2646/2022 brought the deceased Claimant No. 2's widow (Pratibha) and son (Mahindra) on record as his legal heirs despite a 2973-day delay, supported by a Death Certificate and a Grampanchayat certificate (Gramsevak, Police Patil, Sarpanch), with an undertaking to produce a Competent Court heirship certificate; CA 2477/2022 concerned condonation of 1490 days' delay in filing the appeal. Held: since Claimant No. 1, the real brother, was already on record when the Judgment and Award was passed, the Award was not a nullity in law — relying, as urged by the applicants, on Jayarama Reddy & Anr. v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool, (1979) 3 SCC 578 (paras. 39–40). Both applications allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'; the applicants were, however, denied interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period, and a copy of the order was directed to be kept with the Appeal memo.

 1 943CA2646.2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

943 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2646 OF 2022

IN FAST/477/2020

Damodhar Narayan Kanakdande And Ors VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Ms. Angha Pandit h/f Mr. Kiran M. Nagarkar - Advocate for Applicants Mr. R. D. Raut - AGP for the State

Mr. Vinesh C. Solshe – Advocate for Respondent No. 3

AND

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2477 OF 2022 IN FAST/477/2020

Damodhar Narayan Kanakdande And Ors VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Ms. Angha Pandit h/f Mr. Kiran M. Nagarkar - Advocate for Applicants Mr. R. D. Raut - AGP for the State Mr. Vinesh C. Solshe – Advocate for Respondent No. 3

CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATED : 08^TH APRIL 2025

PER COURT : -

This is an Application for bringing on record the legal heirs

of Applicant No. 2 – Balkrishna s/o Narayanrao Kanakdande.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicants,

who are the widow and the son of deceased – Balkrishna, that the

Reference was preferred by one Damodhar Narayan Kanakdande and

SG Punde

 2 943CA2646.2022.odt

deceased – Balkrishna s/o Narayanrao Kanakdande. She submits that, Damodhar, who is the real brother of deceased – Balkrishna was already on record when the Judgment and Award was passed. She submits that, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award will not be a nullity in law. She cites a judgment in Jayarama Reddy & Anr. v. Revenue Divisional

Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool , (1979) 3 SCC 578 , and relies on paragraph nos. 39 and 40. She submits that the Application be allowed.

There is no dispute that the claim was filed by the two claimants i.e. Brother of the Deceased and the Deceased. Deceased was Claimant No. 2. He died before the Award was passed. However, the Claimant No. 1, the real brother of the Deceased was on record. Now this Application by the widow and the son of the Deceased / Claimant No. 2 for bringing them on record.

There is a delay of 2973 days in filing the Application. The Appeal preferred by the Original Claimant No. 1 – Damodhar and the LRs of Deceased / Claimant No. 2 – Balkrishna, is on stamp number as there is separate Civil Application No. 2477 of 2022 for condonation of 1490 days delay caused in preferring the First Appeal. The said Application is filed by the original Claimant No. 1 – Damodhar and the legal heirs of Deceased / Claimant No. 2 – Balkrishna. The learned AGP

SG Punde

 3 943CA2646.2022.odt

appears for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. V. N. Solshe appears for Respondent No. 3.

Since the real brother of the Deceased Balkrishna / Claimant No. 2 was already on record when the Judgment and Award was passed, it cannot be said that the entire Award was a nullity. A copy of the Death Certificate and the Certificate issued by the Grampanchayat under the signature of the Gramsevak, Police Patil and the Sarpanch is enclosed with the Application showing the Applicants Pratibha and Mahindra as the widow and the son of the Deceased – Balkrishna, respectively. Advocate for the Applicants undertakes to place on record an appropriate certificate issued by the Competent Court showing the Applicants as the legal heirs of Deceased – Balkrishna.

In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated in the Applications, both the Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ thereof.

The Applicants shall not entitled to interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period that has been caused in preferring the Appeal. A copy of this order be kept along with the Appeal memo of this matter.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] JUDGE

SG Punde