BHAULAL BHIMRAO HARNE PINGALE DURGESH MADHUKAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR AURANGABAD — CA/3931/2026
Case under Land Acquisition Act - Appeal Section 54. Disposed: Contested--Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute on 05th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030123682026
e-Filing Number
22-03-2026
Filing Number
CA/9248/2026
Filing Date
26-03-2026
Registration No
CA/3931/2026
Registration Date
02-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME
Bench Type
Single
Category
FIRST APPEAL ( 53 )
Sub-Category
LAND ACQUISITION - SINGLE BENCH ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHAULAL BHIMRAO HARNE PINGALE DURGESH MADHUKAR
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR AURANGABAD
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AURANGABAD
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JAGTIK BANK PROJECT DEPARTMENT NEAR OLD HIGH COURT BUILDING AURANGABAD
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME
URGENT ORDERS (CIVIL)
FOR ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | URGENT ORDERS (CIVIL) |
| 09-06-2026 | FOR ORDERS |
Orders
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) partially allowed the applicant's application to withdraw Rs. 2,77,72,122 deposited by the State of Maharashtra in a land acquisition case. The court permitted withdrawal of 75% of the amount with accrued interest upon furnishing an undertaking, rejecting the applicant's claim for the full amount. The State contested the decision, arguing the compensation enhancement was excessive and that pending contentious issues in the appeal warranted caution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) partially allowed the applicant's application to withdraw Rs. 2,77,72,122 deposited by the State of Maharashtra in a land acquisition case. The court permitted withdrawal of 75% of the amount with accrued interest upon furnishing an undertaking, rejecting the applicant's claim for the full amount. The State contested the decision, arguing the compensation enhancement was excessive and that pending contentious issues in the appeal warranted caution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts