The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna. vs Gautam Trimbak Ragde and Ors.

Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶10

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14166 OF 2025 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13535 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2338 OF 2022

¶11

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna .. Applicant

¶12

Versus Maroti Bhika Kharat and others .. Respondents

¶13

Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶14

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14165 OF 2025 IN

¶15

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13550 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2323 OF 2022

¶16

2 938 ca 14159.25 with others

¶17

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna .. Applicant Versus Gautam Trimbak Ragde and others .. Respondents

¶18

Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶19

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14164 OF 2025 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13450 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4239 OF 2022

¶20

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna .. Applicant Versus Ganpat Bhika Kharat and others .. Respondents

¶21

Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶22

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 3715 OF 2022 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14045 OF 2025

¶23

Sandu Rustum Kharat and others .. Appellants Versus

¶24

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶25

Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Appellants. Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.

¶26

WITH

¶27

3 938 ca 14159.25 with others

¶28

FIRST APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2026 WITH

¶29

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14048 OF 2025

¶30

Vasant Bhagaji Ragde and others .. Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶31

Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Appellants. Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Shrirang s. Dande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.

¶32

WITH

¶33

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1751 OF 2023 WITH

¶34

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13337 OF 2025

¶35

Uttam Daulat Kharat .. Appellant Versus

¶36

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶37

Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate h/f Shri Arun H. Koralkar, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶38

Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Ruturaj C. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.

¶39

WITH

¶40

FIRST APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2026 WITH

¶41

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14043 OF 2025

¶42

Bhika Shripat Kharat

¶43

Since deceased through his L.Rs. Rukhmanbai died through L.Rs. Maroti and another .. Appellants Versus The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Jalna .. Respondents

¶44

Shri Vilas M. Humbe, Advocate for the Appellants.

¶45

4 938 ca 14159.25 with others

¶46

Shri Shrirang S. Dande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶47

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2026.

¶48

FINAL ORDER :

¶49

. Heard both sides.

¶50

These matters can be decided together because there are common facts and legal issues involved. In following matters by common order dated 11^th December, 2025, first appeals were partly allowed remanding the matters to the Reference Court.

¶51

I First Appeal No. 2334 of 2022 II First Appeal No. 2338 of 2022 III First Appeal No. 2323 of 2022 IV First Appeal No. 4239 of 2022

¶52

The acquiring body has taken exception to the common order dated 11.12.2025 by preferring review application, pointing out mistake apparent on the face of record that the direction to decide matters afresh which is incorporated in para No. 5(B) would enlarge the scope unnecessarily and that is likely to be misused by pressing into service concocted or fictitious claim.

¶53

In following matters appellants are claiming remand of the matters in view of filing of applications for additional evidence.

¶54

5 938 ca 14159.25 with others

¶55

i) First Appeal No. 3715 of 2022 ii) First Appeal No. 22 of 2026 iii) First Appeal No. 1751 of 2023 iv) First Appeal No. 23 of 2026

¶56

It is contended that the same course as is done in earlier matters by passing common order dated 11.12.2025 be adopted.

¶57

The common thread of submissions of the learned counsel Mr. Humbe in all these matters is that there were trees in the lands under acquisition and his clients are armed with evidence to that effect. They have preferred civil applications for additional evidence, which needs objective scrutiny. This Court has rightly remanded the matters so as to enable the appellants/claimants to place on record addition evidence, which course needs to be followed in remaining matters also. It is further candidly submitted that his clients are ready to give up interest and statutory benefits for limited duration.

¶58

Per contra, Mr. Dande and Mr. Ruturaj Patil, learned counsels appearing for the respondent – acquiring body in first appeals and for the review applicant would vehemently point out that blanket order of remand would create obligations and would pave way to false and concocted claims for enhancement. The original pleading and the evidence also needs to be taken into account besides additional evidence. The plea and objections to be raised by the acquiring body need to be kept open. It is

¶59

6 938 ca 14159.25 with others

¶60

further pointed out that the appellants – claimants are not entitled to interest and statutory benefits from the date of decision of the Reference Court till the order passed by this Court as the lapses are attributable to the appellants – claimants.

¶61

I have considered the rival submissions of the parities and the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Reference Court. I have also gone through the common order under review dated 11^th December, 2025.

¶62

Appellants – claimants filed applications for additional evidence and stated that they were armed with necessary material which promoted this Court to pass order of remand. It is apparent on the face of record that order under review is likely to be misconstrued and likely to be misused by pressing into service false or concocted claims. It needs to be guarded or clarified. The objection raised by the learned counsels for the respondent – acquiring body cannot be said to be misplaced. It would be open for the Reference Court to test genuineness of the claim to the touch stone of earlier pleading and evidence, besides new pleadings and material.

¶63

The applicants have preferred applications for additional evidence on different dates in this Court in December 2025. The first appeals filed by them were accompanied by applications for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned. They could have filed these applications immediately after filing of first appeals.

¶64

7 938 ca 14159.25 with others

¶65

There is considerable delay from filing of the appeals and filing of the applications for additional evidence. The lapses are attributable to them. It is trite law that the statutory benefits would be forfeited in case appeals are preferred belatedly. In that view of the matter, appellants – claimants shall not be entitled to interest and statutory benefits from the date of impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court till December 2025.

¶66

For the reasons stated above, I pass following order.

¶67

O R D E R

¶68

A. First appeals are allowed partly.

¶69

B. Impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court are quashed and set aside and matters are relegated to the Reference Court to decide them afresh on their own merits.

¶70

C. All points are kept open.

¶71

D. The Reference Court shall consider the objections to be raised by the acquiring body as is permissible in law and shall examine the genuineness of the claim on their own merits.

¶72

E. Appellants – claimants shall not be entitled to claim interest and statutory benefits from the date of earlier judgment and award passed by the Reference Court till December 2025.

¶73

8 938 ca 14159.25 with others

¶74

F. Parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 05.05.2026.

¶75

G. The Reference Court shall decide the matters expeditiously.

¶76

H. Civil applications for production of additional documents are disposed of.

¶77

I. It will be open for the Reference Court to consider earlier pleadings and the evidence on record in-justa position with the subsequent pleadings and evidence.

¶78

J. The civil applications for review filed by the acquiring body are disposed of in view of above directions.

¶79

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

¶80

bsb/April 26

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna. v. Gautam Trimbak Ragde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna. v. Gautam Trimbak Ragde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr. Sunil Navalu Magdum and Ors. vs Mr. Navalkumar Bhimrao Halbagol Ors.

The Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium Project vs Dada So Ankush Khatal and Ors.

Bapusaheb Shankar Shete and Ors. vs Shantabai Annasaheb Shete and Ors.

Suresh Babasaheb Ambhure and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Jalna and Ors.

Kasabai Shivram Rajput, L.Rs. Gangaram Died Thr Lrs Harnabai G. Rajput and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Aurangabad

Thakusing Bannusing Rajput vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Aurangabad