1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH FIRST APPEAL NO. 124 OF 1995 WITH 1] Hashanna Sayanna Pande age 55 years, occ. agriculture, R/o. Tamloor, tq. Degloor, District Nanded. 2] Vithal s/o. Hashanna Panade, age 27 years, occ. and residence of as above. 3] Sriniwas Hashanna Panade, age 25 years, occ. and residence of as above. - - - - - Appellants versus 1] The State of Maharashtra 2] Special Land Acquisition Officer, Degloor. - - - - Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 126 OF 1995 1] Gousmiya s/o. Sadulla age 50 years, occ. agriculture, R/o. Hamloor, taluka Degloor, District Nanded. - -- - Appellant versus 1] The State of Maharashtra 2] Special Land Acquisition Officer, Degloor, dist. Nanded. - - Respondents 2 Shri R. N. Bharaswadkar, Advocate holding for Shri M. M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for appellant in both the appeals. Shri B. V. Wagh, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents in both the appeals. CORAM: N. D. DESHPANDE, J. Reserved for orders on : 2nd December 2009 Order pronouned on : 18th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. Heard Shri R. M. Bharaswadkar holding for Shri Patil for the appellant and Shri Wagh for the respondent State. 2. These two appeals are also arising out of same Notification dated 12-4-1990 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of rehabilitation of flood affected persons. Other sister appeals namely; First Appeal No. 368/1995, 369/1995, 370/1995, 371/1995, 372/1995, 373/1995, 374/ 1995 , 375/1995 and 376/1995 came to be decided by a common judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23/27-1-2004. Therefore, Shri Wagh, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader also agreed for the same decision taken earlier for disposal of these two appeals. A xerox copy of the said decision is also placed on record by Shri M. M. 3 Patil, Advocate for the appellant during the course of hearing of this appeal. It is taken on record and marked at Exhibit A. Perused the said judgment. 3. It is further pointed out that the same Reference Court by order dated 31-8-1994 had also disposed of Land References by separate order on the same date and gave reasons separately for each case. The learned Reference Court also considered piece of evidence adduced by the appellants therein and also other landholders referring to prices and payment of compensation. 4. Learned Counsel Shri Bharaswadkar for the appellants did not dispute that the land in question asked for enhanced compensation is covered by the same Notification and References were also before the same Court and to some extent he has gone by common discussion. 5. In the light of the above stated facts, the present two appeals are also disposed of in the same terms as observed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in its Order dated 23/27-1-2004 [Exhibit A] on record. 4 6. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) pnk/fa12495