Ajitsinh S/O. Sahebrao Raje. v. Gmidc Aurangabad Thr The Exe Engineer And ORS.

2026:BHC-AUG:8750 ..1..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 4 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2230 OF 2026 IN FA/669/2018 AJITSINH S/O. SAHEBRAO RAJE.

VERSUS

GMIDC AURANGABAD THR THE EXE ENGINEER AND OTHERS ...

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2231 OF 2026 IN FA/669/2018 VENKATESH SAHEBRAO RAJE (NIMBALKAR).

VERSUS

G.M.I.D.C. AURANGABAD THR EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OSMANABAD AND OTHERS.

...

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Dhorde Vikram R. Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. G. Bhalerao AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/State : Mr. S. P. Joshi Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 : Mr. V. V. Ingale ...

AND 5 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2235 OF 2026 IN FA/668/2018 AJITSINH S/O. SAHEBRAO RAJE.

VERSUS

GMIDC AURANGABAD THR THE EXE ENGINEER AND ORS. ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Dhorde Vikram R. Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. G. Bhalerao AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/State : Smt. Sai S. Joshi Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 : Mr. V. V. Ingale ...

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2236 OF 2026

..2..

IN FA/668/2018 VENKATESH SAHEBRAO RAJE (NIMBALKAR).

VERSUS

G.M.I.D.C. AURANGABAD THR EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OSMANABAD AND OTHERS.

...

CORAM :

KISHORE C. SANT AND SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.J.

DATE :

26.02.2026 PER COURT :

1.

These applications are moved seeking withdrawal of the amount deposited and presently lying in the office of this Court, deposited by the respondent Corporation. The appeals are already disposed of vide order dated 20.08.2024. The orders are confirmed by the Honourable Apex Court as per the statements made by the parties. The applicants are relying upon the orders passed by this Court in similar other first appeals from the same group i.e. the order dated 29.01.2026 passed in Civil Application No. 14110/2025 in First Appeal No. 669/2018 and in Civil Application No.14124/2025 in First Appeal No.668/2018 of the same group.

2.

Though the applications are opposed by the learned Advocate for the acquiring body, this Court finds that no purpose would be served by

..3..

keeping the amount in the office of this Court. 3.

Considering above, all these applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause -'B'.

4.

The applications are disposed of accordingly. 5.

Needless to say that the applicants would be entitled to receive the amount to the extent of their respective shares. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR ) ( KISHORE C. SANT ) JUDGE JUDGE shp/-