1 KRISHNA HIRAMAN PATIL AJEET BABANRAO KALE vs 1 THE COLLECTOR JALGAON — CA/5326/2026

Case under Land Acquisition Act - Appeal Section 157. Disposed: Contested--Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute on 05th May 2026.

CNR: HCBM030172932026

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

25-04-2026

Filing Number

CA/12877/2026

Filing Date

28-04-2026

Registration No

CA/5326/2026

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

Land Acquisition Act - Appeal Section 157

Petitioner(s)

1 KRISHNA HIRAMAN PATIL AJEET BABANRAO KALE

2 MUKTABAI HIRAMAN PATIL

Adv. AJEET BABANRAO KALE

Respondent(s)

1 THE COLLECTOR JALGAON

2 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER TAPI PROJECT HATNUR

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GIRNA KALVA NUTANIRAKAN VIBHAG

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER TAPI VIKAS MAHAMANDAL

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME

05-05-2026

AT 2.30 PM CIVIL SIDE MATTERS

Orders

05-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) partially allowed the applicants' civil applications seeking withdrawal of land acquisition compensation deposits. The court permitted 75% withdrawal upon furnishing an undertaking and the remaining 25% upon providing solvent surety/security to the Court's Registrar. The court also condoned delays in preferring first appeals, finding no mala fides, and admitted the appeals for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) partially allowed the applicants' civil applications seeking withdrawal of land acquisition compensation deposits. The court permitted 75% withdrawal upon furnishing an undertaking and the remaining 25% upon providing solvent surety/security to the Court's Registrar. The court also condoned delays in preferring first appeals, finding no mala fides, and admitted the 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

Search Another Case