902-FA-1821-2014.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1821 OF 2014 The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others …… Mr. Sudhir Bhalerao, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. V.S. Gundre, Advocate for Respondent No.3 …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The learned counsel who was representing the appellant-Corporation has not been appearing on several earlier occasions. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Sudhir G. Bhalerao, learned counsel who is presently on the panel of the appellant-Corporation, to appear on behalf of the appellant in the present matter. He has graciously accepted the request and has appeared and assisted the Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 26.11.2010 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.62 of 2001. 2026:BHC-AUG:41310 902-FA-1821-2014.odt 2 4. Learned counsel Mr. Bhalerao, as well as the learned AGP, upon going through the record, submit that the land of the appellant was acquired for the Renapur Medium Project from village Kamkheda. They submit that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 10.07.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.526 of 2011 and connected matters, whereby this Court has enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the claimants therein. They, therefore, submit that the present appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the said order. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGP, and in view of the admitted position that the controversy involved in the present appeal is identical to the one decided by this Court in First Appeal No.526 of 2011 and connected matters vide order dated 10.07.2026, whereby this Court has granted enhancement in compensation to the claimants therein, and having regard to the other merits of the matter, I see no reason to take a different view. Consequently, the challenge raised by the appellant-Corporation to the enhancement granted by the Reference Court cannot be accepted. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 6. The First Appeal is dismissed. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane