HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C C C APPEAL No.66 OF 1998 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This appeal is filed by the appellant - claimant against the order, dated 30-06-1997, in OP No.273 of 1987 passed by the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the appellant seeking reference for enhancement of the compensation from Rs.40/- to Rs.1,000/- per square yard for the acquired land, was dismissed. 2. The respondent / Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land of an extent of Acs.4.09 guntas in survey Nos.21 and 25 and Ac.0.10 guntas in survey No.26 situated Daira village, Musheerabad Mandal belonging to the appellant herein and the claimants in OP No.163 of 1987. Pursuant to the notification, dated 30-10-1974, issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘LA Act’), an award, dated 23-09-1986, was passed fixing the market value at Rs.40/- per square yard apart from interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession till the date of passing the award, and @ 15% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment. As there were rival claims with regard to title of the property and the claimants also claiming the market value at Rs.90/- per square yard, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 as well as 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The claim of the appellant herein was referred in O.P. No.273 of 1987 and the claims of the other claimants, namely, Hameedunnisa Begum and Habeeb Mohammed, were referred in O.P. No.163 of 1987. During the pendency of the OPs, both the parties have compromised the matter inter se and according to the compromise, the claimants in OP No.163 of 1987 on the one hand and the appellant herein on the other, are entitled for equal shares of the compensation amount in respect of the land situated in survey Nos.21 and 25 i.e. Acs.4.09 guntas; and apart from that the appellant is entitled for entire compensation amount in respect of the land of 10 guntas in survey No.26. In both the OPs, the claimants have claimed market value at Rs.1,000/- per square yard. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer contended that the market value fixed by him for the acquired land in both the OPs was reasonable. 4. The reference Court considered both the OPs., together. The only point framed by the reference Court for its consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation and if so, to what amount. 5. The reference Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties and after taking into consideration the entire material available on record, confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant in OP No.273 of 1987 preferred this appeal. 6. Heard. 7. The appellant herein filed the claim petition claiming the compensation at Rs.1,000/- per square yard contrary to its claim before the Land Acquisition Officer, who claimed compensation at Rs.90/- per square yard only. Admittedly, the claimants have not filed any documentary evidence. In fact, the 2nd claimant in O.P. No.163 of 1987 was examined as PW-1 and claimed compensation at Rs.130/- per square yard as was said to be paid in respect of the land in survey No.19, which is adjacent to their land, by mutual consent in Consent Award. Neither the said award was filed nor any other material evidencing the payment of the compensation at Rs.130/- was filed. 8. The Managing Trustee of the appellant herein was examined as PW-2, who stated that he came to know that one Jalagam Sattemma, owner of the adjacent land in survey No.19, was awarded Rs.130/- per square yard as per negotiations, with all other benefits. It is also stated that as per the compromise between the appellant Trust and the claimants in OP Nos.163 of 1987 , filed before the Land Acquisition Officer, all the claimants in both the OPs., which is the subject matter of this appeal, agreed to share 50% each in respect of Acs.4.09 guntas situated in survey Nos.21 and 25. It is stated that there were no sale transactions for about three years. 9. The Special Deputy Collector was examined as RW-1 and stated that as per Ex.B-1 award, his predecessor fixed the award based on the sale transactions of preceeding three years and as per Ex.B-2 sale deed, the land covered in Ex.B-2 is situated at survey No.184, Gagan Mahal Village, which is adjacent to the acquired land, the same was sold at Rs.29/- per square yard and the value of the land as on the date of acquisition is Rs.30/- to 40/- per square yard. In the cross examination, he stated that the land in survey No.19/2 which is far away from the lands in survey Nos.21 and 25 and 26 were also acquired and compensation was paid at Rs.30/- per square yard in respect of the land acquired in survey No.19. It is sated that survey No.19 is situated at Gagan Mahal village, whereas the acquired lands are in Daira village. 10. To consider the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the relevancy or otherwise of the payment of compensation in respect of the acquired lands in survey No.19 at Rs.130/- per square yard, which is said to have been situated in Gagan Mahal village which is far away from the lands in question, we are of the opinion that the common judgment fixing the compensation at Rs.40/- per square yard in respect of both the OPs has become final. There cannot be two different decrees in respect of the same acquired land. We have also noticed that as per the compromise, the appellant is entitled to 50% share only, but the decree was erroneously drafted as if the appellant alone is entitled to the entire amount. The claimants in OP. No.163 of 1987 have not filed any appeal. We are of the opinion that the appellant has to implead the other half shareholders. Therefore, the impugned judgment needs no interference by this Court. 11. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J November 30, 2011. ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J KTL