( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.180 OF 1993 1. Baburao s/o. Kalappa Utage, .. Appellants Age. 56 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Gundappa s/o. Kalappa Utage, Age. 51 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. As above. 3. Gurupd s/o. Kalappa Utage, Age. 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. As above. 4. Shivappa s/o. Kalappa Utage, Age. 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. As above. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.192 OF 1993 Ratnabai d/o. Kallappa Hudge, .. Appellant Age. 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. ( 2 ) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.191 OF 1993 Shankar s/o. Chandappa Hudge, .. Appellants died – through L.Rs. 1. Parvatibai w/o. Shankar Hudge, Age. 55 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Makni, Tal. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Kalawati Nandkumar Butte, Age. 40 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Solapur. 3. Sanjay s/o. Shankar Hudge, Age. 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makni, Tal. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad. 4. Sunita w/o. Mallinath Karpe Age. 30 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Anandpur, Tal. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.193 OF 1993 Gurupad s/o. Shantiappa Hudge, .. Appellant Age. 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. ( 3 ) WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.234 OF 1994 Bhagwat s/o. Vinayak Sathe, .. Appellant Age. 38 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.242 OF 1994 Vinayak s/o. Limbaji Sathe, .. Appellant Age. 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.463 OF 1996 Yadav s/o. Dashrath Sathe .. Appellant Died through L.Rs. 1. Manohar s/o. Yadavrao Sathe, Age. 55 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Kashinath s/o. Yadavrao Sathe, Age. 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. ( 4 ) 3. Janardan s/o. Yadavrao Sathe, Age. 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.464 OF 1996 Shivaji s/o. Pundlik Sathe, .. Appellant Age. 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.465 OF 1996 Narayan s/o. Rama Bhore, .. Appellant Age. 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.543 OF 1993 ( 5 ) 1. Balaji s/o. Vishwanath Alange, .. Appellants Age. 28 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Baliram s/o. Vishwanath Alange, Age. 26 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 3. Mahadeo s/o. Vishwanath Alange, Age. 24 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.544 OF 1993 1. Babruwan s/o. Bhimrao Bhose, .. Appellant Age. 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Sudhakar s/o. Bhimrao Bhose, Age. 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.545 OF 1993 ( 6 ) Manohar s/o. Ravan Owandkar, .. Appellant Age. 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.546 OF 1993 Ravan s/o. Aneba Owandkar, .. Appellant died through L.Rs. 1. Jeejabai w/o. Ravan Owandkar, Age. 79 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Makani, Tal. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Manohar s/o. Ravan Owandkar, Age. 62 years, Occ. Agri, R/o. Makani, Tal. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad. 3. Latabai w/o. Subhash Pawar, Age. 50 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Udatpur, Tal. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.547 OF 1993 Vaijnath s/o. Govinda Pandharpure, .. Appellant Age. 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. ( 7 ) Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.548 OF 1993 Shivaji s/o. Bhaurao Musande, .. Appellant Age. 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.440 OF 2006 Laxman s/o. Ganpati Lobhe, .. Appellant Age. 40 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.571 OF 2002 Babu s/o. Shivram Almale, .. Appellant Age. 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. ( 8 ) Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.605 OF 2002 Babruwan s/o. Ganpati Lobhe, .. Appellant Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Makani, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent through the Collector, Osmanabad. Shri S.K. Shelke, Advocate for the appellants/claimants. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 16.06.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. All these appeals arise out of groups of land acquisition references decided by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, on various dates. The lands which were situated at village Makni, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad, were acquired for the purpose of Lower Terna Project. ( 9 ) Notification regarding acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 02.12.1982. In First Appeal Nos. 463 of 1996, 1403 of 2000, 440 of 2006 and 605 of 2002, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded rate of Rs. 3600/- per acre. It is also not disputed that in all other appeals rate of Rs.4400/- per acre was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 2. After acquisition the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed awards in these matters on 18.09.1996. The rate awarded by the Reference Court was Rs. 10,000/- and 12,000/- per acre. In First Appeal No. 545 of 1993 he awarded Rs. 9000/-, whereas the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded rate of Rs.4400/- per acre. The Reference Court awarded rate of Rs.12000/- per acre in First Appeal Nos. 463 of 1996, 440 of 2006 and 650 of 2006 and Rs. 10,000/- per acre in First Appeal No. 1403 of 2000. 3. Being dissatisfied with the awards of the Reference Court, these appeals are filed. All these appeals arise out of acquisitions made under same notification issued on 02.12.1982 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The ( 10 ) date of award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is also same i.e. 18.09.1986. All these lands are situated at same village Makni. 4. The learned advocate Shri S.K. Shelke for the appellants has relied upon the common judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.574 of 1992 with First Appeal No. 38 of 1993 and First Appeal No.574 of 1992, decided on 8th January, 2008. The copy of judgment is taken on record in First Appeal No. 180 of 1993 and marked “X”. In those three appeals the lands of claimants were situated at village Makni. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on same day i.e. On 02.12.1982, as in the present appeals. It is argued that though in some cases Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded rate less than Rs.4500/- per acre, if we compare rate/s awarded by the Reference Court, in those cases and other cases it is clear that all lands are almost of equal quality and potential and all should fetch same rate of market price. The learned advocate for the appellant placed on record comparative tables, marked “Y” & “Z”. Thus, it is argued that the lands are comparable lands, ( 11 ) situated in same village, and they were also acquired for same project on same day. So, it is prayed that rate of Rs. 17000/- per acre awarded be awarded in the present appeals following the rate granted in said appeals. 5. The learned A.G.P. Shri Tele has verified the record and conceded that the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in appeals referred in the judgment of this Court dated 8th January, 2008 and in the first appeals which are being disposed of by this common judgment is same. The properties are also situated at same village Makni. Considering rates awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court, it can be said that the lands involved in the first appeals decided by judgment dated 8th January, 2008, are comparable with the lands involved in these appeals, which are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. Adv. Shri S.K. Shelke has relied upon case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Prashram Jagannath Aute, 2007 (5) Mh.L.J. 403 and ONGC Ltd. V/s. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and Ors., (2005)6 S.C.C.454 and argued that rate of Rs. 17000/- awarded ( 12 ) by this Court may be accepted as market value and all these appeals may be allowed accordingly. Where compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings and when the lands were comparable and the dates of notification under Section 4 are one and the same or in close proximity, market rate fixed by the High Court in such earlier proceedings can be accepted by referring to these judgments and awards. In the present case, considering the judgment and market rates awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court, the lands can be considered as comparable. I rely on the ratio laid down in Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. V/s. Mariano Caetano Clarimundo Francisco Jose De Piedade Menezes, 2005 (3) Mh.L.J.249, K. Periasami V/s. Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition), (1994) 4 S.C.C.180, Daisy and anr. V/s. The State of Kerala, AIR 1971 S.C.2272 and Sharadchandra Chimanlal and ors. V/s. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 Gujarat 55. 7. A.G.P. Shri D.V. Tele stated that the judgment in First Appeal No. 574 of 1992 with First Appeal No. 38 of 1993 and 574 of 1992 decided on 8th January, 2008, has become final and no appeal is preferred against the same. ( 13 ) 8. In this view of the matter, we can very well accept Rs.17000/- per acre as the market rate of acquired lands on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, relying on said judgment delivered by this Court on 8th January, 2008. 9. In these circumstances, this group of 18 appeals is allowed. It is held that the appellants in all appeals of this group will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 17000/- per acre instead of rate awarded by the Reference Court. The appellants would also be entitled to claim other statutory benefits such as 30% amount as solatium, as well as 12% component under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the additional amount that may be payable. All these appeals are accordingly allowed and disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/fa180.93