Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DAILYLAW 1863 (BOM)

M.S.E.B. JALGAON v. BABULAL JAIRAM THAKARE AND OTHERS

FA/2445/2008 · 2026-08-24

body2008

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

FA 2445/08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 60 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2445 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 843 OF 2003 IN FA/2445/2008 M.S.E.B. JALGAON VERSUS BABULAL JAIRAM THAKARE AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.M. Gaikwad AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 24, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal, the appellant/acquiring body assails the judgment and award dated 21.4.1998 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division at Jalgaon in LAR No. 30/1993. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/acquiring body and the learned AGP for State tendered across the Bar a copy of the judgment and order dated 27.2.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in FA No. 496/2002 (Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Parwatibai Vedu Pawar and Ors.) and other connected matters. He submits that the land of the present appellant was acquired from the same village, for the same purpose i.e. Deepnagar Thermal Power Station, and under the very same notification as involved in FA No. 496/2002 (supra). It is, therefore, contended that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order in FA No. 496/2002 (supra) and 2026:BHC-AUG:38589 FA 2445/08 2 consequently, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in terms thereof. 4. Though served, none appears for respondent/original claimants. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, and in view of the admitted position that the controversy involved in the present appeal is identical to the one decided by the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.496/2002 (supra), I see no reason to take a different view. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment and order. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ii) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/