Bombay High Court
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusKUSUMBAI PADMAKAR SHINGEWAR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeals are dismissed as the compensation is within the four‑times limit and the State Government resolution precludes any challenge.
Summary
The Municipal Commissioner of Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation appealed against several respondents challenging the compensation awarded by a reference court. The State Government had issued a resolution stating it would not contest the reference court’s award if the compensation was enhanced only up to four times the amount granted by the Special Local Authority Officer (SLAO). The learned appellate court examined whether the compensation exceeded this four‑fold limit and whether the State’s resolution barred any further challenge. It found that the compensation was within the four‑times ceiling and that the resolution expressly precluded any intervention. Consequently, the court dismissed all the appeals and ordered the disposal of any pending civil applications related to the matters.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded by the reference court exceeds four times the amount granted by the SLAO.
- Whether the State Government’s resolution bars any challenge to the compensation if it is within the four‑times limit.
- Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to intervene in the reference court’s award under the stated circumstances.
Subjects
- compensation
- municipal corporation
- reference court
- State Government resolution
- appellate jurisdiction
- civil applications
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26605
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…