FA 3882/17 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 917 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3882 OF 2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD VERSUS NARAYAN LAXMAN SHINGE AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Shelke Avishkar S. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.D. Wange ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1913 OF 2026 IN FA/3882/2017 … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : October 08, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceeding is initiated in the year 1986, heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the acquiring body and the learned AGP for State. 2. The present appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 28.07.2011 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in LAR No. 442/2009 (Old No. 196/1997). 3. The learned counsel for the acquiring body has tendered across the Bar a copy of the judgment and order dated 22.7.2026 passed in FA No. 3881/2017 (The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Strengthening Division, Omerga, Osmanabad Vs. Shekappa Mahadu Mule and Ors.) and other connected matters passed by this Court. He submits that the land of the claimant was acquired from the same village, for the same public purpose, and under the very same notification as involved in FA No. 2026:BHC-AUG:48128 FA 3882/17 2 3881/2017 (supra). It is, therefore, contended that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order in the FA No. 3881/2017 (supra) and consequently, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in terms thereof. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for acquiring body and the learned AGP for the State 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 FA No. 3881/2017 (supra), I see no reason to take a different view. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment and order. Hence, the first appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending civil application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/