Case Note & Summary
The provided judgment text comprises the opening pages of four writ petitions filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The first matter, Writ Petition No. 5250 of 2020, is accompanied by two civil applications, CA/5136/2020 and CA/5553/2020. It involves 36 petitioners, all described as agriculturists residing in various villages including Shahapur, Dadhegaon, Dhakalgaon, and Math-Tanda in Ambad Taluka of Jalna district. The petitioners are arrayed against eight respondents, namely the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary (Works) of the Public Works Department, the Chief Engineer (National Highway) of the Public Works Department, the Collector of Jalna, the Executive Engineer of the National Highway Division, the Competent Authority and Sub Divisional Officer of Ambad, the Tahasildar of Ambad, the Executive Engineer of the National Highway Divisional PWD Campus at Aurangabad, and State Construction Integrated Works V.P. Sethi and Mehara (Joint Venture). The second petition, Writ Petition No. 6155 of 2020, is filed by two petitioners from Dhakalgaon against the same set of respondents plus the National Highway Authority of India through its Project Director at Aurangabad. The third, Writ Petition No. 5997 of 2020, lists 18 petitioners from Ganesh Nagar, Math-Pimpalgaon, Antarwala, and Samangao in Jalna district, with respondents similar to the first petition but excluding the National Highway Authority. The fourth, Writ Petition No. 5826 of 2020, includes 34 petitioners from Math-Pimpalgaon and Golapangari in Jalna district. All petitioners are identified as agriculturists by occupation. The text records the appearances of advocates: Mr. S.S. Tope for petitioners in all matters; Mr. A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader, for certain State respondents; standing counsel Mr. D.G. Nagode, Mr. A.B. Dhongade, or Mr. Amol Patale for the Public Works Department and National Highway authorities; Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan for Respondent No.4; and Mr. S.K. Kadam for Respondent No.8. The document does not contain the substantive judgment, the prayers sought, the factual background, the legal issues raised, the arguments of the parties, the court's analysis, or any final decision. Consequently, no legal principles, case citations, statutory provisions, or ratio decidendi can be extracted from the text provided. The material is limited to the preliminary captions and appearance details, and no dates of judgment or hearing appear in the extract.
Issue of Consideration
WRIT PETITION NO. 5250 OF 2020
