prakash vitthal solankar and ors v. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION PROJECT STRENGHTING MAJBUTIKARAN DIVISION OMERGA AND ORS
CA/8888/2025 · 2025-08-19
Shri Shailesh P Brahme
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26573 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26573 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 ca 8887.25 in fa 1668.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8887 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1668 OF 2024 Apparao Saheb Solankar Since died through L.Rs. Dasarath Apparao Solankar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra through Collector Osmanabad and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8888 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1669 OF 2024 Prakash Viutthal Solankar and others .. Applicants Versus The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Strengthing Majbutikaran Division, Omerga and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8889 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1670 OF 2024 Rajendra Manik Solankar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra through Collector Osmanabad and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8890 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 14590 OF 2024 2025:BHC-AUG:22835 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
2 ca 8887.25 in fa 1668.24 Motiram Sadashiv Telikune .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra through Collector Osmanabad and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8903 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2024 Jaganath @ Nagnath Babarao Ghotalkar @ Mane Died through L.Rs. Laxmibai and others .. Applicants Versus The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Strengthing Majbutikaran Division, Omerga and others .. Respondents Shri Santosh N. Patne, Advocate for the Applicants in all matters. Shri B. A. Shinde, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Rahul A. Tambe, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2025.
ORDER : . This motion is for speaking to minutes to order dated
19.08.2025.
2. It is pointed out that in para No. 2, it is recorded that claimants were permitted to receive the amount without there being reference to the interest accrued. Considering tenor of the
order, applicants are entitled to interest also. It is further pointed out that figure quoted in para No. 6 is inconsistent with This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
3 ca 8887.25 in fa 1668.24 the figure quoted in para No. 4.
3. The mistakes are obvious. In the fourth line of para No. 2 after the word amount, words "with accrued interest" shall be incorporated. In second line of para No. 6 instead of '65', it shall be recorded as '60'.
4. Necessary corrections be carried out and corrected copy be uploaded. Motion is disposed of.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/Sept. 25 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //