205-FA-2676-2008.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 205 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2676 OF 2008 The State Of Maharashtra VERSUS Rangrao Ramji Shinde …… Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for Appellant Mr. N.S. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal, the appellants-State has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 28.04.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.233 of 1993. 3. The land belonging to the claimant, , situated at village Tugaon, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, came to be acquired for the Benitura Medium Project by issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per Hectare to 15,000/- per Hectare for the acquired land. The claimants received the said amount under protest, reserving their right to seek enhancement in the compensation. 4. Dissatisfied with the Award, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be registered as Land Acquisition 2026:BHC-AUG:46276 205-FA-2676-2008.odt 2 Reference No.233 of 1993. The learned Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs. 33,000/- per Acre and also awarded separate compensation towards fruit-bearing trees. Being dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submits that this Court has already considered the issue of determination of compensation in respect of the same project, namely, Benitura Medium Project, in First Appeal No.2102 of 2010 and connected matters, preferred by the claimants therein. By order dated 07.04.2026, this Court has enhanced the compensation and determined the market value at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per Acre for irrigated land. It is further submitted that the appeals preferred by the State therein were dismissed. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the present appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the said order. Learned AGP appearing for the appellant-State fairly concedes the aforesaid position. 6. In view of the aforesaid decision governing the same project and the market value determined therein, no separate or contrary view is warranted in the present appeal. 7. The First Appeal filed by the appellant-State is, therefore, dismissed. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane