THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S. No.865 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) It is fairly represented by the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, that in view of the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court, dated 17.07.2006, in Appeal Suit No.926 of 1999, this appeal also requires to be dismissed. The present appeal is preferred by the claimants against the award of the Reference Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, dated 15.02.1999 in L.A.O.P. No.29 of 1990. The agricultural land of the appellants - claimants of an extent of Acs.8-81 guntas in several survey numbers of Patha Srikakulam Village, Srikakulam Municipality, was acquired pursuant to a requisition by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board for construction of houses. Other extents were also acquired vide notification, dated 19.08.1983, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). Eventually, after a due process, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award, dated 28.02.2001, determining the compensation at Rs.99,820/- per acre. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, several claimants including the appellants herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference sought by the appellants herein was numbered as L.A.O.P. No.29 of 1990. Another reference by similarly situated claimants aggrieved by the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer pursuant to the same land acquisition proceedings dated 19.08.1983, was tried and determined in L.A.O.P. No.75 of 1989. In L.A.O.P.No.75 of 1989, as in the L.A.O.P. out of which the present appeal arises, the learned Reference Court determined the market value of the land at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the order in L.A.O.P. No.75 of 1989, the claimants therein preferred Appeal Suit No.926 of 1999, which was rejected by the learned Division Bench of this Court, dated 17.07.2006. For reasons alike, as recorded in the judgment, dated 17.07.2006, in A.S. No.926 of 1999, the present appeal also requires to be rejected and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J January 19, 2011. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Kdl/Ndr