14-sr917-CA.10427.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 917 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10427 OF 2026 IN FAST/10139/2020 Bharat Ramniwas Chandak. VERSUS The Administrator, CIDCO, CIDCO Office, Jalna Road, Aurangabad And Ors. ---- Mr.R.P.Totala, Advocate for applicant Mr.S.V.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr.S.P.Sonpavale, AGP for respondent no.2 ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026 ORDER :- Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.09.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in L.A.R. No.458 of 1998, the acquiring body – CIDCO has filed the First Appeal. In the appeal while securing stay to the execution and operation of the impugned award, the acquiring body - CIDCO has deposited 60% of the entire payable award amount with interest in this court pursuant to the order passed by this court. Now, this application is filed for withdrawal of 10% of the deposited amount since the applicant hold 10% share in the total compensation. 2 14-sr917-CA.10427.2026 2. Mr.Totla, learned advocate for the applicant describes bifurcation of shareholding of all the beneficiaries at paragraph no.9 of his application. He would submit that respondent nos.3 to 5 jointly hold share for 22.5%; respondent no.6 hold share of 22.5%; respondent no.7 also holds share of 22.5%; and respondent nos.8 and 9 jointly hold share of 22.5%. He would submit that as per the agreement between the parties and also with CIDCO the applicant is entitled for 10% interest in the amount of compensation. He would point out the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by this court in Civil Application No.13381 of 2022 in the present First Appeal. It appears from clause II of the operative order that applicant nos.1 and 2 therein were allowed to withdraw 22.5% while applicant nos.3 and 4 were jointly allowed to withdraw 22.5% of the amount deposited, on condition to furnish bank guarantee to the extent of half of the amount which they were allowed to withdraw and balance 50% amount was allowed to be withdrawn on furnishing undertaking. 3. Mr.Deshmukh, learned advocate appearing for appellant – CIDCO would fairly submit that in terms of the order cited by the applicant a suitable order could be passed in this matter also. 3 14-sr917-CA.10427.2026 4. Considering above, I allow the application in the following terms :- (I) The application stands partly allowed. (II) The applicant is permitted to withdraw 10% of the amount deposited by the acquiring body/appellant in this court with interest accrued thereon. It is clarified that withdrawal shall be subject to furnishing bank guarantee for half of the amount today permitted to be withdrawn and on furnishing undertaking to the satisfaction of learned Registrar (Judicial) of this court for remaining half amount. (III) It is further clarified that if the applicant fails to furnish the bank guarantee for half of the amount, Registry shall not deny disbursement of the balance half portion if the applicant furnishes undertaking in terms of today’s order. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP