1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.2046 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Latur. ... Appellant. Versus Trivenibai W/o Kishanrao Ghadge, died through L.Rs. Pravin Ramrao Ghadge, Age 28 years, Occ.Business, R/o Shgivaji (Bk.), Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. Now at present at Kolhapur. ... Respondent. ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2047 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Latur. ... Appellant. Versus Ramrao S/o Kishanrao Ghadge, Age 50 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Shivani (Bk.),Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur. ... Respondent. ... 2 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2048 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant. through the Collector, Latur. Versus Trivenibai W/o Kishanrao Ghadge, died through L.Rs. 1. Pravin Ramrao Ghadge, Age 28 years, Occ.Business, 2. Bharat Kisanrao Ghadge, Age 30 years, Occ.Agri., All R/o Shivani (Bk.) Tq.Ausa, Dist. Latur. ... Respondent. ... Mr. S.D.Kaldate, A.G.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 01.12.2009. PER COURT 1. By consent, these three (3) appeals are taken up for final hearing and are being disposed of. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that agricultural lands of the Respondents were acquired for public purpose namely, K.T.Weir 3 construction. The SLAO awarded compensation of Rs.42,000/- (Rupees forty two thousand) and Rs. 44,000/- (Rupees forty four thousand) per hectare as per the quality of the acquired lands. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival contentions. Suffice it to say that the award of the SLAO was challenged before the Reference Court by the Respondents. Their Reference Applications were partly allowed. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation in respect of the acquired lands. The Reference Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired lands was Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand) per hectare. 3. The judgment of the Reference Court has been challenged in these appeals. The appellant (State) submits that the enhancement is of excessive nature and the Reference Court committed error while awarding such compensation to the Respondents. It is pertinent to note that the Respondents challenged the very same judgment by filing First Appeal Nos.16/2003, 17/2003 and 18/2003 before this Court. A Division Bench of 4 this Court (Coram : P.V.Hardas and K.K.Tated, JJ.) allowed the appeals of the Respondents. The Division Bench held that market value of the acquired lands was Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) per hectare. The compensation was thus further enhanced by the Division Bench of this Court. 4. Considering the intervening development and in view of the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in sister appeals, now there remains hardly anything to say in the present appeals. It is difficult to interfere with the findings of the Reference Court in view of the subsequent developments and as such the present appeals are without any merit. 5. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/fa204609