Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Pralhad Sanddu Chaudhari on 28 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 19,25,26,27,29-FA.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
19 FIRST APPEAL NO.711 OF 2003
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
RSMSING HIRAMAN PARDESHI
...
AND FA/716/2003 AND FA/717/2003
AND FA/714/2003 WITH CA/4717/2003 IN FA/711/2003
AND FA/715/2003 AND FA/712/2003 AND FA/713/2003
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr. S. S. Dande
Advocate for Respondent-claimant : Mr. Ajeet B. Kale
...
AND
25 FIRST APPEAL NO.1038 OF 2003
WITH X-OBJ(ST)/25518/2004
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
KASHINATH SANDU CHAUDHARI
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr. B. V. Virdhe
Advocate for Respondent-claimant : Mr. Ajeet B. Kale
...
AND
26 FIRST APPEAL NO.1039 OF 2003
WITH X-OBJ(ST)/25530/2004
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
LEELABAI KASHINATH CHAUDHARI
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr. S. S. Dande
Advocate for Respondent-claimant : Mr. Ajeet B. Kale
...
AND
27 FIRST APPEAL NO.1043 OF 2003
WITH X-OBJ(ST)/25527/2004
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
PRALHAD SANDDU CHAUDHARI
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr. B. V. Virdhe
Advocate for Respondent-claimant : Mr. Ajeet B. Kale
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 06:56:48 :::
2 19,25,26,27,29-FA.odt
...
AND
29 FIRST APPEAL NO.1101 OF 2003
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ANOTHER
VERSUS
SUMANBAI NAMDEO PATIL
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr. B. V. Virdhe
Advocate for Respondent-claimant : Mr. Ajeet B. Kale
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL, 2021
PER COURT :-
All these matters are arising out of the same project and same
acquisition proceedings, which was the subject matter of present Appeals.
2. Mr. A. B. Kale, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants
submits that the issue involved in these appeals stand settled by the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Land
Acquisition Officer (III), Jalgaon and another Versus Bhagwat Vithal
Sonwane1, where in respect of acquisition for the very same Waghur
Project, the Division Bench has approved the very rates now granted by the
Reference court in the impugned Judgment and award. Therefore, he
submits that by adopting the reasoning in the case of Bhagwat Vithal
Sonwane (supra), these appeals are also liable to be dismissed.
3. In view of aforesaid submission, since this Court has already
passed the Judgment and order in the connected matters long back and it
was not challenged in the Apex Court. Hence, it has attained finality.
1 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 308
3 19,25,26,27,29-FA.odt
4. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to take
different view, which was taken by the same Judgment, and accordingly, I
adopt the same view.
5. Accordingly, these first appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In view of the disposal of first appeals, nothing further survives for
consideration in pending X-Objections on Stamp and civil application, if
any, the same stand disposed of, accordingly.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
rrd
