Bombay High Court
Gangaram Nayaraynrao Tayade (Dead), ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Collector, ... on 30 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1850
1 12-wp-7484-24j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7484 OF 2024
Gangaram Narayanrao Tayade (dead)
through his L.Rs.
1] Baburao Gangaramji Tayade,
(dead) through his L.Rs.
1-a] Smt. Bebitai Baburaoji Tayade,
Aged 77 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Ghatladki, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Disst. Amravati.
1-b] Manoj S/o. Baburao Tayade,
Aged 45 years, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Ghatladki, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Disst. Amravati.
1-c] Mangla W/o. Nitinrao Kshirsagar,
Aged 43 years, Occ. Household Wife,
R/o. Pathan Pura, Brahamanwada
Thadi, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Disst. Amravati.
1-d] Mangesh S/o. Baburao Tayde,
Aged 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Ghatladki, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Disst. Amravati.
1-e] Manisha W/o. Sudhir Umbarkar,
Aged 38 years, Occ. Household Wife
R/o. Sai Nagar Daryapur, Tq. Daryapur
Disst. Amravati.
2] Sahebrao Gangaramji Tayade (dead)
thorough LRs.
A] Smt. Kusum Sahebrao Tayade,
Aged 63 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Ghatladki, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Distt. Amravati.
2 12-wp-7484-24j.odt
B] Sau. Vrushali W/o. Pravin Kshirsagar,
Aged 43 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Brahmanwada Thadi,
Tq. Chandur Bazar, Disst. Amravati.
C] Sau. Vaishali W/o. Nitin Thakare,
Aged 38 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Nimbhari, Tq. Anjangaon Surji,
Disst. Amravati.
D] Sau. Dipali W/o. Nitinrao Kene,
Aged 35 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Malkapur, Tq. & Disst. Buldhana
E] Harshal S/o. Sahebrao Tayade,
Aged 33 years, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Ghatladki, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Disst. Amravati.
3] Vinayak Gangaramji Tayade (dead)
through LRs.
A] Smt. Vandana Vinayak Tayade,
Aged 54 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Ghatladki, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Disst. Amravati.
B] Shubham S/o. Vinayak Tayade,
Aged 29 years, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Ghatladki, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Disst. Amravati.
C] Dip S/o. Vinayak Tayade,
Aged 19 years, Occ. Education
R/o. Ghatladki, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Distt. Amravati. . . . PETITIONERS
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra through
Collector, Amravati
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Upper Wardha Project No. 4, Amravati. . . . RESPONDENTS
3 12-wp-7484-24j.odt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vikky S. Gokhale h/f. Shri R. J. Shinde, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri N. R. Rode, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 30.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard.
2. The learned AGP waives notice for respondent nos. 1 and 2/State.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsels for the parties.
4. The petition challenges the order dated 11.06.2002 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Achalpur, Dist. Amravati in L.A.C. No. 27/1994 (LAC No. 11/1995).
5. It appears that the Reference Court by the impugned order dismissed the reference for absence of the petitioners whose land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petition is covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in case Diwakar Prabhakar Chopade Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Aurangabad and others [2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 591] as 4 12-wp-7484-24j.odt well as the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 819/2024 (Dhuribai Kalu Jadhav (dead) through LR Vs. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 02.07.2025), wherein it has been observed that it is not open for the Reference Court to dismiss the Reference only for want of no evidence on the part of the applicant, which is done in this case. Therefore, the impugned order of the Reference Court cannot survives.
6. Sofaras, the delay in approaching the Court is concerned, it appears that before filing this Writ Petition, a Revision came to be filed by the petitioners. No doubt, even there is delay in filing the Revision but, learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage made a submission that the petitioners would not claim any interest on the enhanced amount from the date of framing of issue by the Reference Court till the date of restoration of the Reference, if it is granted. This undertaking will take care of the interest of the respondents in that regard therefore, the following order is passed:-
i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 11.06.2002 passed by the Civil
Judge Senior Division, Achalpur, Dist. Amravati in L.A.C. No. 27/1994 (LAC No. 11/1995) is hereby quashed and set aside.
5 12-wp-7484-24j.odt
iii) L.A.C. No. 27/1994 (LAC No. 11/1995) is restored to file. The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 16.02.2026.
iv) The Reference Court is directed to dispose of the Reference on the basis of merit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.
v) Needless to mention that if the petitioners succeed in getting enhanced amount of compensation, they would not be entitled to get the interest on the amount of compensation and solatium from the date of framing of issue till 16.02.2026.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) RR Jaiswal Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/02/2026 19:58:40