THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL L.A.A.S.NOS. 12, 13 15, 17, 19, 20, 29, 34, , 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 85, 89, 152, 153, 231, 264, 270, 346, 440, 515, 672, 1090, AND 1135 OF 2011 AND 76, 77 AND 90 OF 2012 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah) Heard the learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the appellants – Land Acquisition Officer and the learned counsel for the respondents – claimants. 2. As the appeals arise out of the common orders dated 3.12.2009 and 4.12.2009 passed by the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, in considering the land acquisitions for the same purpose and awards, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. By notification dated 12.3.1999 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land of the claimants ranging from 0.02 cents to about Ac.1-50 cents, totaling to Acs.29.17 cents in different survey numbers situate at Bhanumukkala village of Banaganpalle Mandal, was acquired for the purpose of major distributory of Block No.X of SRBC, Bhanumukkala. The Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.21/29 dated 31.1.2000 awarded compensation of Rs.38,000/- per acre for dry lands, Rs.43,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands and vacant lands. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought reference in different O.P.Nos.261, 281, 284, 280, 247, 264, 262, 641, 643, 642, 248, 263, 251, 286, 638, 645, 634, 639, 283, 285, 636 and 282 of 2008. By common judgment dated 3.12.2009, the referral court i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, relying on the judgment of the High Court, which was marked as Ex.B-8, wherein the lands situated at a distance of 0.02 kms from SRBC quarters were acquired by notification dated 3.10.1990 and the market value was fixed at Rs.1,41,000/- per acre, and further taking into consideration the time gap of about eight and half years between the notification dated 3.10.1990 under Ex.B-8 and the present notification dated 12.3.1999, by giving escalation at 12 per cent per annum, enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,76,000/- per acre uniformly for all the three categories of lands. Aggrieved by the same, the Government filed appeals in L.A.A.S.Nos.12, 13, 17, 20, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 46, 48, 52, 270, 346, 440, 515, 672, 152, 153 and 23 of 2011 and 76, 77 and 90 of 2012 respectively. 4. Similarly, by notification dated 23.2.2000 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Government acquired the lands of the claimants ranging from 0.07 cents to Ac.1-92 cents, totaling to Acs.18-21 cents, in different survey numbers situate at Bhanumukkala and Thammadamalli villages for the purpose of excavation of 3 L and 1L SUB minor of 3L minor under block No.X in SRBC, Bhanumukkala village. The Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.29/1999- 2000 dated 31.5.2000 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.38,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.43,000/- per acre for other categories of lands. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference to the civil court in O.P.Nos.252, 253, 256, 236, 245, 242, 239, 255, 238, 614, 240, 243, 254, 258, 241, 257 and 265 of 2008. The referral court by common judgment dated 4.12.2009 enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,90,000/- per acre uniformly for all the lands. Aggrieved by the same, Government filed appeals in LAAS.Nos.15, 19, 36, 34, 40, 49, 50, 54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 85, 89, 264, 1090 and 1135 of 2011 respectively. 5. The lands involved in all the appeals are situated in Bhanumukkala village of Banaganpalle Mandal of Kurnool District and they were acquired for the same purpose. As noted above, the learned trial court has relied on Ex.B-8, where under, for the acquired lands under Section 4(1) notification dated 3.10.1990, situated in the same vicinity i.e, 0.02 kms, the High Court fixed the compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- per acre and by giving escalation to the said amount as there is time gap of about eight years, enhanced the compensation. 6. The learned Government Pleader for appeals confined his arguments only to giving escalation at 12 per cent per annum on the value arrived at based on High Court Judgment under Ex.B-8 by the referral court and contended that the lands in question are situate in rural area and hence increase can be given between 5% to 7 % and in support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in MEHRAWAL KHEWAJI TRUST v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1]. He submitted that the lands are situated in Bhanumukkala village of Banaganapalle mandal, Kurnool District and depending upon the factors like date of the notification and the class of lands sought to be acquired, the escalation on the market value arrived at based on the previous notification dated 3.10.1990, can be at most 10 per cent and not beyond that and in support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH[2]. With these submissions, he sought to reduce the escalation given by the referral court. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the referral court, based on evidence, found that the lands under acquisition are situate at a distance of ½ k.m. from the town and the cross road point of Kollakuntla – Tadipatri P.W. road and they are situated adjacent to township, having potentiality and, therefore, the trial court taking Ex.B-8 as the basis for arriving at the market value and as there is time gap of about eight years, by giving escalation awarded the compensation. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in ASHRAFI v. STATE OF HARYANA [3] the learned counsel submitted that as there is sharp rise in prices of land lying within the municipal area and having substantial potential for development of residential and commercial purpose, the increase shall be cumulative compounding at the rate of 12 per cent and whereas in the present case, the escalation was given on flat rate at 12 per cent. He submitted that in similar facts and circumstances, where appeals were filed by the Government in L.A.A.S.No.70 of 2011 and batch, which were disposed of by common order dated 2.12.2009, the Division Bench of this court has confirmed the order of the reference court and hence the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. 8. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the purpose of acquisition and the amounts awarded under different heads by the referral court, except the escalation of 12% given to the lands on the market value arrived at based on the earlier judgment of this court, which is marked as ExB-8, whereunder this court while examining the appeal filed against the acquisition of the lands under Section 4(1) dated 3.10.1990 for public purpose, has fixed the market value at Rs.1,41,000/- per acre. 9. As per the evidence available on record, the acquired lands are situated adjacent to township and got the potentiality of commercial as well as residential purposes. In the present case, the escalation of 12 per cent was given based on the earlier judgment of the High Court. The Apex Court in the decision reported in ASHRAFI v. STATE OF HARYANA (3 supra) held that such escalation of market value can be at the rate of 12% cumulative compounding annual increase, where the land are lying within municipal area and having substantial potential for development of residential and commercial purpose. The facts on record disclose that they are within the municipal limits with commercial and residential potentiality. Considering these circumstances, the trial court granted escalation at the rate of 12 per cent on the market value arrived based on earlier judgment of this court. In these circumstances, the objection raised by the learned Government Pleader cannot be sustained. Moreover in the very same facts and circumstances, arising out of different O.Ps. in the common order dated 3.12.2009, in L.A.A.S.No.70/2011 and batch dated 3.12.2014 this court has dismissed the appeals filed by the Government, by following other Division Bench judgment in the very same set of facts and circumstances in L.A.S.No.71 of 2008 dated 16.4.2014. In view of the Division Bench judgments of this court, it is clear that the subject matter is squarely covered and hence present appeals are also dismissed, confirming the impugned common orders of the trial court. No costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ---------------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J --------------------------------------------- M.S.K.JAISWAL,J DATE:26.12.2014 AVS [1] (2012)5 SCC 432 [2] (2009)14 SCC 375 [3] (2013)5 SCC 527