HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI LAAS.No.385 of 2008 & Cross Objections 2125 of 2011, LAAS.No.295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 307, 309, 310, 311, 317 and 428 of 2017 COMMON JUDGENT: (per V. Ramasubramanaian, J) While LAAS.No.385 of 2008 is by the Land Acquisition Officer, Telugu Ganga Project, Rapur at Nellore, all the other appeals are by land owners. Even in LAAS.No.385 of 2008, some of the respondents have come up with cross-objections. 2. All the appeals are under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In LAAS.No.385 of 2008, the Land Acquisition Officer challenged the enhancement granted by the reference Court. In the cross-objections in LASS.No.385 of 2008 and in all other appeals before us, the land owners claim that the enhancement granted by the reference Court is inadequate. 3. Heard Mr. Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals and Mr. S. Lakshmana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the cross-objectors in LAAS.No.385 of 2008 and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals (A.P.), for the appellant in LAAS.No.385 of 2008 and for the respondents in all other appeals. 4. By notifications published on various dates in the year 1992, innumerable structures situated at Reach No.2 of Dachur village, were acquired for foreshore submersion of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project. The Land Acquisition VRS, J & JUD, J LAAS.No.385 of 2008 & batch 2 Officer passed awards on various dates in the years 1993 and 1994. No compensation was awarded for the lands, since the title of the claimants to the lands, were not established. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation only for the superstructures. 5. At the instance of the claimants, references were made under Section 18 of the Act. In the references under Section 18, the Court enhanced the value of the superstructures by 50%. 6. Contending that such an enhancement is wrong, the Land Acquisition Officer has come up with LAAS.No.385 of 2008. Some of the claimants have filed cross-objections. Many others have filed independent appeals, claiming that the enhancement should have been more than 50%. 7. It appears that in respect of another project known as Somasila Project, where lands and superstructures were acquired in about 100 villages, the Government issued an order in G.O.Rt.No.101 Irrigation & CAD (Projects Wing-L.A.IV-R.RIII) Department, dated 20-02-2006, according permission to settle all 1987 cases pending in various courts, relating to the land acquired for Somasila Project by enhancing the value of the superstructures by 80%. 8. Based on the said Government order, this Court allowed an appeal in LAAS.No.213 of 2013 dated 07-04-2016. The said decision was followed by another Bench of this Court in a VRS, J & JUD, J LAAS.No.385 of 2008 & batch 3 judgment dated 27-12-2016 in a batch of cases LAAS.No.107 of 2013 and batch. Even recently, one of us (VRSJ) had an occasion to follow the aforesaid decisions, as part of a Division Bench in LAAS.No.472 of 2008 and batch dated 19-06-2018. 9. Therefore, following the above, all the appeals except LAAS No.385 of 2008 are allowed and the value of the superstructures is directed to be enhanced by 80%. Learned counsel for the appellants conceded that he has no material to substantiate the claim of the claimants for compensation for the lands. Therefore, the claim for compensation for lands is rejected in all these cases, but the value of the superstructures shall stand enhanced by 80%. 10. Coming to LAAS.No.385 of 2008, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, as the enhancement of 50% granted by the Reference Court is found to be inadequate. The cross-objections are bound to be allowed and accordingly, they are allowed directing the enhancement of the value of superstructures by 80%. 11. Some of the respondents in LAAS.No.385 of 2008 have not filed cross-objections. But, in Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat and another1, the Supreme Court made it clear that even those persons are entitled to the benefit, subject to their payment of court fee. Therefore, all the respondents in A.S.No.385 of 2008 are entitled to enhancement of the value of the superstructures by 1 (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 250 VRS, J & JUD, J LAAS.No.385 of 2008 & batch 4 80%. Those who have not filed cross-objections are liable to pay court fee for the enhancement so that they get the benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J _____________ J. UMA DEVI, J Date: 01-11-2018 Ksn