24-FA-237-2017.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 24 FIRST APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2017 The Chief Officer Municipal Council Tuljapur VERSUS Shridevi Prakashrao Sarkale And Others …… Mr. K.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. L.R. Thakur, Advocate h/f Mr. L.C. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. S.N. Morampalle, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.139 of 2013. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni for the appellant and the learned AGP for the State, upon going through the record, submit that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 21.08.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.2343 of 2015 and connected matters, whereby this Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the claimant and enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the claimant therein, whereas the appeal preferred by the acquiring body, i.e. the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Tuljapur, was dismissed. They, therefore, submit that the present appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the said order. 2026:BHC-AUG:41306 24-FA-237-2017.odt 2 4. 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.2343 of 2015 and connected matters vide order dated 21.08.2026, whereby this Court granted enhancement in compensation to the claimant therein, whereas the appeal preferred by the acquiring body, i.e. the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Tuljapur, was dismissed, I see no reason to take a different view. Consequently, the challenge raised by the appellant-acquiring body cannot be accepted. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 5. The First Appeal is dismissed. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane