State Of Mah vs Swarupchand Shivjiram Jain
2021 Latest Caselaw 7206 Bom

                                      1                         785-2003-FA+Group.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 785 OF 2003

                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                    VERSUS
                         SWARUPCHAND SHIVJIRAM JAIN

                                    AND
                                FA/786/2003
                                    AND
                                FA/840/2003
                                    AND
                                FA/842/2003

                                   ...
                   AGP for Appellant : Mr. S.S. Dande
         Advocate for Respondents-claimants : Mr. Ajeet B. Kale
                                   ...
                                       CORAM :   ANIL S. KILOR, J.

                                          DATE     :     5th MAY, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-

1. At the outset, Mr. A. B. Kale, learned counsel for the

respondents-claimants submits that the issue involved in these Appeals

stands 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. The learned AGP is not disputing the said fact.

1 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 308



                                         2                       785-2003-FA+Group.odt

2. 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, it would not be appropriate to take

different view, which was taken by the same Judgment, and accordingly, I

adopt the same view.

3. Accordingly, the First Appeals are dismissed. No order as to

costs.

( ANIL S. KILOR ) JUDGE arp/-