THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSAMANABAD v. MANOHAR BABURAO HOGALE
CA/2875/2018 · 2026-09-11
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10639 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10639 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Tauseef
1 of 2 924-CA.2874.2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 924 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.27458 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2874 OF 2018 IN FAST/27458/2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSAMANABAD VERSUS MANOHAR BABURAO HOGALE ... Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Ramesh V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Respondent. ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2875 OF 2018 IN FAST/27458/2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSAMANABAD VERSUS MANOHAR BABURAO HOGALE … Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Ramesh V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Respondent. ...
CORAM :
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE :
11th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.:- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2874 OF 2018:-
1. By this application, the Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 1321 days in filing first appeal.
2. Considering the averments made in the application, the 2026:BHC-AUG:42712
Tauseef
2 of 2 924-CA.2874.2018 application is allowed.
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.27458 OF 2017:-
3. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2004, the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
4. By this appeal, the Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.10.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Osmanabad in L.A.R. No.389/2007.
5. Both the learned Advocates for the respective parties submit that the compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court is slightly more than four times the amount awarded by the SLAO.
6.
In fact the State Government vide Government Resolution No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and 13.08.2018 to the said Government Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the reference, if compensation is enhanced only upto four times.
7. Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the impugned order. Hence, the present Appeal is dismissed.
8. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)