Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18793 (BOM)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER v. ASHOK BHAULAL GAIKWAD AND OTHERS

CA/8366/2013 · 2026-10-01

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 of 2 364-CA.8365.2013 Tauseef IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 364 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.17747 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8365 OF 2013 IN FAST/17747/2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS ASHOK BHAULAL GAIKWAD AND OTHERS ... Mr. S. N. Morampalle, AGP for the Appellants/State. Mr. C. K. Sonawane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8366 OF 2013 IN FAST/17747/2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS ASHOK BHAULAL GAIKWAD AND OTHERS … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2026 P.C.:- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8365 OF 2013:- 1. By this application, the Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 267 days in filing first appeal. 2. Considering the averments made in the application, delay is condone. Accordingly, the application is allowed. FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.17747 OF 2013:- 3. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2002, 2026:BHC-AUG:47954 2 of 2 364-CA.8365.2013 Tauseef the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 4. By the present appeal, the Appellant/State is challenging the judgment and award dated 06.07.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad in LAR No.508/2010 (Old No.433/2005), whereby the learned Reference Court refused to enhance the compensation to the extent claimed by the Claimants. 5. Learned AGP for the Appellant/State submits that this Court has taken a view in First Appeal No.2035 of 2014 with other connected matters decided on 15.09.2015 arising out of same project i.e. construction of Nagpur-Mumbai Highway. 6. Upon perusal of order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.2035 of 2014, I am inclined to adopt the same view in the present appeals. In the said matter, this Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the State. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. 7. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)