Ambadas Kisan Bhuyar And Others v. Dnyandeo Ganpat Ingle And Others

2026:BHC-NAG:3649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

SECOND APPEAL NO.

OF APPELLANTS : 1.

Ambadas Kisan Bhuyar, Aged about 44 years, Occ-Agriculture, 2.

Vitthal Kisan Bhuyar, Aged about 39 years, Occ-Agriculture, 3.

Dnyandeo Baban Ingle, Through his legal heirs, 3a) Kamla Dnyandeo Ingle, Aged about 61 years, OccHousehold, 3b) Santosh Dynandeo Ingle, Aged about 43 years, OccAgriculturist, 3c) Ganesh Dynandeo Ingle, Aged about 38 years, OccAgriculturist, All R/o-Changephal, Tq. & Dist.

Akola 3d) Sau. Sharda Ganesh Kale, Aged about 41 years, OccHousehold, R/o- Tar File, Akola, Dist. Akola.

3e) Sau. Suryakanta Keshavrao Hinge, Aged about 37 years, OccHousehold, R/o-Tintrala, Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana 4.

Baliram Baban Ingle, Aged about 53 years, Occ-Agriculture,

5.

Gajanan Baban Ingle, Aged about 43 years, Occ-Agriculture, 6.

Suryabhan Baban Ingle, Aged about 43 years, Occ-Agriculture, All R/o-Changephal, Tq. And Dist.

Akola.

7.

Smt. Chandabai Baban Ingle, Through her legal heirs, 7i) Smt. DevkabaiRameshwarPagrut, Aged about adult, OccHousehold, R/o-Ghusar, Tq. And Dist. Akola.

7 ii) Onkar Baban Ingle, Through his legal heirs, 7ii-a) Pramila Sanjay More, Aged adult, Occ-Household, R/o-Khandala, Tq. Shegaon, Dist.

Buldhana 7ii-b) Gangabai Satyabhan Khande, Age-adult, Occ-Household, R/o Rajanda, Tq. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola.

7ii-c) Smt. Rukhminibai Onkar Ingle, Age-Adult, Occ-Household, 7ii-d) BaldevOnkar Ingle, Age- 51 years, Occ-Agriculture 8.

Bhimrao Onkar Ingle Aged about 56 years, Occ-Agriculture, 9.

Vishwambhar Onkar Ingle, Aged about 43 years, Occ-Agriculture, All R/o- Changephal, Tq. And Dist.

Akola ... Original Defendants

..VERSUS..

: 1.

Dnyandeo Ganpat Ingle, Through its Legal Heirs, RESPONDENTS 1a) Smt. Vimalbai Dnyandeo Ingle, Aged about 72 years, OccHousehold, R/o-Changephal, Tq. And Dist. Akola.

1b) Sunil Dnyandeo Ingle, (Deceased) 1c) Sau. Sandhya Rajendra Kale, Aged about 57 years, OccHousehold, R/o Gadge Nagar, Bhatkuli Road, Amravati, Dist.

Amravati 1d) Sau. Vandana Prakash Kharode, Aged about 55 years, OccHousehold, R/o-Badnera, Dist. Amravati.

1e) Sau. Seema Santosh Gorle, Aged about 52 years, OccHousehold, R/o-Wadegaon Fatehpur, Tq. Achalpur, Dist.

Amravati.

2.

Sunil Dyandeo Ingle, Through his Legal heirs, 2a) Smt. Ranjana Sunil Ingle, Aged about 51 years, Occ-Household 2b) Mayur Sunil Ingle, Aged about 31 years, Occ-Agriculture, 2c) Shubham Sunil Ingle, Aged about 30 years, Occ-Agriculture, 2d) Akshay Sunil Ingle, Aged about

28 years, Occ-Agriculture, All R/o-Changephal, Tq. And Dist. Akola.

3.

DigambarGanpat Ingle, Aged about 77 years, Occ-Agriculture, 4.

Vishnu Ganpat Ingle, Aged about 71 years, Occ-Agriculture, Both R/o-Changephal, Tq. And Dist.

Akola.

...Original Plaintiffs 5.

Smt.Bebabai Haribhau Hingne (dead), Through legal heirs, 5-a) Haribhau Kashiram Hingne, Aged about-65 years, occuAgriculturist, 5-b) Nilesh Haribhau Hingne, Aged about 35 years, occu-Agriculturist, 5-c) Rajesh Haribhau Hingne, Aged about 30 years, occu-Agriculturist, 5-d) Gopal Haribhau Hingne, Aged about 27 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 5-e) Rameshwar Haribhau Hingne, Aged about 25 years, occuAgriculturist, All R/o Tintrav, Tq. Shegaon, Dist.

Buldhana.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for appellants. Mr. A. S. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent Nos.5A to 5E. Mr. M. G. Sarda, Advocate for respondent No.1(a), 1©, 1(D), 1(E) and 2(a to d), 3 and 4.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM

: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 04.03.2026

J U D G M E N T :

1) Learned advocate for the appellants contends that the First Appeal was decided on merits without service of notice to respondent Nos.2, 3-d, 3-e, 7-ii-a, 7-ii-b, 7-ii-c, who are appellant Nos.2, 3d, 3e, 7ii-a, 7 ii-b in the present appeal. 2) Vide order dated 22.01.2026, record and proceedings were called. On perusal of the record and proceedings, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned advocate for respondent No.5A to 5E do not dispute that the aforesaid respondents were not served in the Regular Civil Appeal.

3) In view of the above, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- I.

Whether the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is sustainable specially when the same is passed without service of notice of First Appeal upon some of the respondents in First Appeal i.e. respondent Nos.2, 3-d, 3-e, 7-ii-a, 7-ii-b, 7-ii-c

who are appellant Nos.2, 3d, 3e, 7ii-a, 7 ii-b in the present appeal ?

4) At the joint request of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith.

5) In view of the concession by learned advocates for respondents that the appeal was in fact decided without notice to the respondents in the first appeal whose numbers enumerated in the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in favour of appellants. The First Appeal will have to be remanded for decision afresh. Learned First Appellate Court is requested to make endeavor to decide the appeal at the earliest, having regard to the fact that the appeal was filed in the year 2023 and the dispute pertain to right of way of agriculturists. Second Appeal is allowed in the following terms:- I.

Judgment and decree dated 06.05.2024, passed by the learned District Judge-3, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No.174 of 2023 is quashed and set aside.

II.

The learned First Appellate Court is requested to decide the appeal expeditiously and if possible

before 31.03.2027.

III.

Parties shall appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 04.04.2026.

IV.

Parties to note that separate notice for appearance will not be issued.

V.

Parties to bear their own costs.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Tanmay...