1 of 5 911-FA.3881.2017 (modified).odt This order is modified as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 07.08.2026. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3881 OF 2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD VERSUS SHEKAPPA MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS ... Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale and Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Claimant. ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3883 OF 2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD VERSUS DATTU MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS … Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Claimant. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5540 OF 2015 IN FA/3880/2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD VERSUS PRAKASH MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS … Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale and Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5536 OF 2015 IN FA/3881/2017 2026:BHC-AUG:34355 2 of 5 911-FA.3881.2017 (modified).odt THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD VERSUS SHEKAPPA MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS … Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale and Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5534 OF 2015 IN FA/3883/2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD VERSUS DATTU MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS … Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3880 OF 2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD VERSUS PRAKASH MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS … Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale and Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Claimant. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Admit. 3 of 5 911-FA.3881.2017 (modified).odt 2. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1986, the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 3. By the present appeals, the Appellant-acquiring body is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.07.2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Omerga, District Osmanabad in LAR Nos.437/2009, 443/2009 and 441/2009, whereby compensation came to be enhanced. 4. The lands of the Claimants were acquired for the purpose of Benitura Medium Project, the Notification under Section 4 was published on 21.04.1988, the award was passed on 26.09.1992. The SLAO awarded compensation @ of Rs.13,000/- per Hector, the Claimants had claimed compensation @ of Rs.1,50,000/- per Hector for dry land. The learned Reference Court enhanced the same @ of Rs.60,000/- per Acre. 5. Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale, learned Advocate for the original Claimants tenders a copy of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos.18 of 2006 and 1596 of 2012. He submits that the acquisition in those appeals pertains to the same village and the same project. He further submits that both the acquiring body as well as the Claimants had approached this Court, and the Coordinate Bench confirmed the award granting compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. He submits that wherever the 4 of 5 911-FA.3881.2017 (modified).odt learned Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per acre, the same was enhanced to Rs.60,000/- per acre. Therefore, according to him, the present appeals can also be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. 6. However, Mr. Avinash Shelke, learned Advocate appearing for the Acquiring Body submitted that while deciding the earlier matters, the Coordinate Bench had not considered that the sale instance relied upon was subsequent to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to him, the said point was not raised in those appeals. Therefore, he submits that this Court should independently consider the said issue and hear the Appellant on this point. 7. He submitted that the notification under Section 4 was published on 21.04.1988, whereas the sale instance relied upon by the learned Reference Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Exhibit-32 is dated 19.03.1994, i.e., more than six years after the publication of the notification under Section 4. Therefore, according to him, the said sale instance cannot be treated as a comparable sale instance. He further submitted that the learned Reference Court has solely relied upon the said sale instance, and the same has been affirmed by the Coordinate Bench in the companion matters. He also submits that this issue was not raised in First Appeal Nos.18 of 2006 and 1596 of 2012. 5 of 5 911-FA.3881.2017 (modified).odt 8. I find that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already taken a view in respect of the same acquisition, pertaining to the same village and the same project. Judicial discipline and propriety require this Court to adopt a consistent view unless there are compelling reasons to differ. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body seeking a different view in the present matters. 9. Accordingly, I am inclined to pass the same order as that passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos.18 of 2006 and 1596 of 2012. 10. The learned Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre, and the same has already been confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos.18 of 2006 and 1596 of 2012. Therefore, maintaining judicial discipline and consistency, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award. 11. In view of the above, the First Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef