LAXMAN RAMCHANDRA PATIL AJEET BABANRAO KALE vs 1 THE COLLECTOR JALGAON AND ORS. — CA/5350/2026
Case under Land Acquisition Act - Appeal Section 157. Disposed: Contested--Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute on 05th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030170562026
e-Filing Number
25-04-2026
Filing Number
CA/12686/2026
Filing Date
27-04-2026
Registration No
CA/5350/2026
Registration Date
04-05-2026
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)
LAXMAN RAMCHANDRA PATIL AJEET BABANRAO KALE
Respondent(s)
1 THE COLLECTOR JALGAON AND ORS.
2 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER TAPI PROJCET HATNUR
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GIRNA KALVA NUTANIKARAN VIBHAG
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER TAPI VIKAS MAHAMANDAL
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME
AT 2.30 PM CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | AT 2.30 PM CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
Orders
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad partially allowed the civil application filed by Laxman Ramchandra Patil against the Collector Jalgaon and others in a land acquisition matter. The court permitted the applicant to receive the deposited amount (which was only 25% instead of the full amount) upon furnishing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court's Judicial Registrar. Additionally, the court condoned the delay in preferring the first appeal, finding no malafides, and admitted the first appeals for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad partially allowed the civil application filed by Laxman Ramchandra Patil against the Collector Jalgaon and others in a land acquisition matter. The court permitted the applicant to receive the deposited amount (which was only 25% instead of the full amount) upon furnishing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court's Judicial Registrar. Additionally, the court condoned the delay in preferring the first appeal, finding no malafides, and admitted the first appeals for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts