State Of Maharashtra (Through The Executive Engineer) v. Prakash Uttreswar Mane And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11332 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 25160 OF 2023 Prakash Uttreswar Mane And Ors.
...Applicants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra (through The Executive Engineer) And Anr.
...Respondents
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12980 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 25160 OF 2023 State Of Maharashtra (through The Executive Engineer) And Anr.
....Applicants
Versus
Prakash Uttreswar Mane And Ors.
....Respondents IRESH MASHAL Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad in IA 11332/2025 Mr. S. H. Yadav, AGP for the State in IA 12980/2024 Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date:
2025.12.22 15:48:59 +0530
CORAM
:
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE :
17th DECEMBER, 2025.
P.C.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12980 OF 2024:
1.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant-State. By this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 307 days in filing the appeal.
2.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 307 days is condoned. The application is allowed and disposed of. 3.
The Appeal be registered.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11332 OF 2025:
4.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent-State.
5.
It is contention of learned counsel for applicant that the land of the applicant is acquired by the respondent-State. The respondentState has deposited entire enhanced amount. The applicant needs the amount for his daily expenses. Hence, requested to allow the application.
6.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State objected to allow the application on the ground that Reference Court has awarded exorbitant and excessive compensation. Hence, requested to reject the application.
7.
I have heard both learned counsels. Considering the submissions of both the counsels as well as land of the applicant is already acquired, the grounds raised by the respondent-State can be
considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Hence, I pass following order:
O R D E R
I.
The application is allowed.
II.
The applicants are permitted to withdraw 50% amount alongwith accrued interest thereon out of the deposited amount on furnishing usual undertaking.
III.
Allowing 50% withdrawal of amount does not mean that the Court is considering the claim of the respondents made before the Reference Court.
8.
The application is disposed off in above terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)