DIGAMBAR EKNATH GAIKWAD. G K SONTAKKE AND MRS. PRIYANDRA SONTAKKE (PATIL). vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD AND ORS. — CA/5105/2026

Case under Land Acquisition Act - Appeal Section 18. Disposed: Contested--Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030165972026

Filing Number

CA/12328/2026

Filing Date

23-Apr-2026

Registration No

CA/5105/2026

Registration Date

28-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Land Acquisition Act - Appeal Section 18

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DIGAMBAR EKNATH GAIKWAD. G K SONTAKKE AND MRS. PRIYANDRA SONTAKKE (PATIL).

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD AND ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. DhoteView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed property claimants Digambar Eknath Gaikwad and others to withdraw 75% of compensation awarded for house property acquisition by the State, with the remaining 25% to be deposited in fixed deposits at a nationalized bank pending further orders. The court maintained parity with similarly situated claimants while the Acquiring Body's complete withdrawal request was rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

  4. 06-May-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

  5. 29-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 23-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CA/5105/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed property claimants Digambar Eknath Gaikwad and others to withdraw 75% of compensation awarded for house property acquisition by the State, with the remaining 25% to be deposited in fixed deposits at a nationalized bank pending further orders. The court maintained parity with similarly situated claimants while the Acquiring Body's complete withdrawal request was rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case