Bombay High Court
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusMANORAMABAI VASANTRAO KHEDKAR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that, as the compensation awarded was within the four‑times limit accepted by the State Government, there was no ground to intervene and the appeals were dismissed.
Summary
The Municipal Commissioner of Nanded Waghela City Municipal Corporation appealed against several respondents challenging the compensation awarded by a reference court. The State Government, through a resolution dated 03‑11‑2016 (with later corrigenda), stated it would not contest the reference court’s award if the compensation was enhanced only up to four times the amount granted by the State Legal Aid Office (SLAO). The learned Advocate‑General argued that the reference court’s compensation fell within this four‑fold limit. The bench examined whether there was any ground to intervene against the reference court’s order and concluded that, given the Government’s resolution, no reason existed to interfere. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed and any pending civil applications were also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded by the reference court exceeds the four‑times limit prescribed by the State Government’s resolution and therefore can be challenged.
- Whether the State Government’s resolution bars judicial intervention in the reference court’s award when it is within the stipulated limit.
Subjects
- compensation
- municipal corporation
- reference court
- government resolution
- appeal dismissed
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26599
1 of 5 14-FA.1836.2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
14 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1836 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
SHANKAR GANGADHARRAO SINGEWAR AND OTHERS
...
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2517 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
MANORAMABAI VASANTRAO KHEDKAR AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2521 OF 2013
NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NANDED
VERSUS
ABDUL MUBIN ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2526 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
RATANSINGH AMARSINGH BASIWALE AND OTHERS
2 of 5 14-FA.1836.2013
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2520 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
SHARADCHANDRA BHALCHANDRA SHAHU AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2515 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
MOHANSING RATANSINGH LANGRI AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2519 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
ONKAR RATAN CHAVAN AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2524 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
3 of 5 14-FA.1836.2013
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
KUSUMBAI PADMAKAR SHINGEWAR AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2522 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
SY. KHAJA SALIM PASHA AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and
2.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2523 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
LAXMAN MANIRAM AHER AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2518 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
HASHAM ALI RAMZAN ALI AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
4 of 5 14-FA.1836.2013
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2525 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
NANAK KAUR DHARAMSINGH SANDHU AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2516 OF 2013
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
SUDHAKAR GANGADHARRAO SINGEWAR AND OTHERS
…
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. The appearance of Mr. Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, learned
Advocate, stands discharged. Mr. Ingole, learned Advocate, appears for
the Appellant.
3. Learned AGP submits that the compensation granted by the
learned Reference Court is within four times the compensation granted
5 of 5 14-FA.1836.2013
by the SLAO.
4. In fact the State Government vide Government Resolution
No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016 with
Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and 13.08.2018 to the said
Government Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the reference,
if compensation is enhanced only upto four times.
5. Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the
impugned orders. Hence, the present Appeals are dismissed.
6. In view of dismissal of the Appeals, pending Civil
Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…