FA 486/06 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 36 FIRST APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2006 BALAJI MAROTRAO SARSE VERSUS RAMRAO MAROTRAO SARSE AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. B.G. Deshmukh AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Korde Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. P.P. Mandlik ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 17, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the objector/appellant assails the judgment and award dated 12.1.2006 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in Lar No. 21/2001 whereby the objection petition filed by appellant for receiving compensation in respect of acquired land came to be dismissed. 3. The lands of the appellant was acquired for Project Isapur Right Canal Distributory K.M. No. 107 to 111. The appellant herein raised objection for paying compensation to present respondent No. 1 for the acquired land from Gat No. 144 to the extent of his share. As the objection was raised, the matter was referred to civil court under section 30 of Civil Procedure Code. Before Civil Court, both the parties led evidence. It has come in the evidence that the appellant/objector gave consent for releasing the advance payment in favour of respondent No. 1/herein. Though the appellant/objector has tried to contend that there was decree passed in Civil 2026:BHC-AUG:38170 FA 486/06 2 Suit No. 63/1998 dated 12.12.1998 before the Civil Judge, J.D., Bhokar and the suit was compromised. On the basis of compromise decree, the appellant/objector contended that the acquired land belongs to the appellant. 4. After considering the evidence led by both the parties, the learned reference court has not accepted the contents of the compromise decree by recording finding that once the property was in possession of the State Government, both the parties are not supposed to file such suit and compromise. More particularly, the reference court has recorded finding that there was already consent given by the present appellant/objector for releasing the advance amount in favour of present respondent No. 1. Therefore, once there was consent given by the objector/appellant and on the basis of that amount was released in favour of present respondent No. 1, even for paying amount for remaining compensation, I find that the appellant has estopped from claiming that amount. Hence, I hold that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned reference court. 5. First appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/