8-FA-1157-2017.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 8 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2017 The Executive Engineer, Patbandhare Project, Omerga And Others VERSUS Kantabai Suryakant Patil AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1158 OF 2017 The Executive Engineer, Patbandhare Project, Omerga And Others VERSUS Govind Baburao Patil AND X-OBJECTION NO. 77 OF 2023 IN FA/1157/2017 Kantabai Suryakant Patil (mane) VERSUS The Executive Engineer, Patbandhare Project, Omerga And Others AND X-OBJECTION NO. 56 OF 2023 IN FA/1158/2017 Govind Baburao Patil VERSUS The Ex. Engineer, Patbandhare Pro., Omerga And Others …… Mr. G. B. Rajale, Advocate for Appellant in both FAs and for Respondent in X-objections Mr. V.V. Ingale, Advocate for Respondents in Both FAs and for Applicants in X-objections Mr.A.M. Phule, AGP for State …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2026:BHC-AUG:43288 8-FA-1157-2017.odt 2 2. The present appeals and cross-objections arise out of the common impugned Judgment and Award dated 17.01.2014 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in Land Acquisition Reference No.279 of 2008 (Old L.A.R. No.144 of 2005) and Land Acquisition Reference No.278 of 2008 (Old L.A.R. No.143 of 2005). 3. The learned counsel for the claimants has tendered across the Bar a copy of the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.958 of 2013 and connected matters. He submits that the lands of the appellants were acquired from village Chendkal for the same public purpose, i.e. Tall Canal of Storage Tank Bhiksarsangvi, under the very same notification as involved in the said appeal. It is, therefore, contended that the controversy involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by the order dated 03.08.2026 passed in First Appeal No.958 of 2013 and connected matters and, consequently, the present appeals as well as the cross-objections deserve to be disposed of in terms thereof. Learned counsel Mr. Rajale, appearing for the acquiring body, as well as the learned AGP, fairly concede the aforesaid position. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, and in view of the admitted position that the controversy involved in the present appeals is identical to the one decided by this Court in First Appeal No.958 of 2013 and connected matters vide order dated 03.08.2026, I see no reason to take a different view. The present 8-FA-1157-2017.odt 3 appeals as well as the cross-objections, therefore, deserve to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment and order. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The cross-objections filed by the original claimants are partly allowed. (ii) The appeals filed by the acquiring body are partly allowed. (iii) The common impunged Judgment and Award dated 17.01.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga in Land Acquisition Reference No.279 of 2008and Land Acquisition Reference No.278 of 2008 is modified. (iv) In the cross-objections filed by the claimants, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.4,400/- per R for irrigated lands, Rs.3,300/- per R for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.2,200/- per R for dry lands, as per the categorization made by the Reference Court. (v) The claimant shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (vi) The claimant shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act, strictly in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. (vii) Save and except the above modification, the common impugned Judgment and Award dated 17.01.2014 shall remain unaltered. 8-FA-1157-2017.odt 4 (viii) The claimants shall pay the deficit court fees, if any, on the enhanced amount. (ix) The appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the remaining amount along with the accrued interest, after adjusting the interest component in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457 (supra). (x) At the time of withdrawal of the amount, the Registrar (Judicial) shall verify all the requisite documents, including the heirship certificate, if any. (xi) After payment of the amount to the claimants, if any excess amount remains, the same shall be paid to the acquiring body along with the accrued interest thereon. (xii) The modified award be drawn accordingly. (xiii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane