State Of Maha v. Kashinath Sandu Chaudhari

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

...

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

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