THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.No.106 of 1997 JUDGMENT: (per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1994 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Land Acquisition Officer, (Special Tahasildar) against the order dated 11.10.1993 in O.P.No.357 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, whereby and whereunder the reference court answered the reference in favour of the claimant fixing the value of the acquired land at Rs.13,000/-per acre against Rs.6,000/-per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. Since the subject lands of this O.P. and the subject lands in O.P.Nos.355 of 1987, 356 of 1987, 358 of 1997 and 359 of 1987 are situated at Rompadu and Sudimalla villages and since they were acquired for depillaring operation in the limits of the said villages, all the five O.Ps were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment by the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem by enhancing the compensation at Rs.13,000/- per acre as against Rs.5,000/- per acre for the lands of Rompadu Village and Rs.6,000/- per acre for the lands of Sudimalla village. Against O.P.No.355 of 1987, the State preferred A.S.No.466 of 1994 before this court and the same was dismissed by judgment, dated 21.08.2006 and it has attained finality. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals contends that the reference court erred in enhancing the compensation by adopting the capitalization method and that there is no documentary evidence on record to show the quantum of yield and the rates prevailing at the relevant point of time. As such, the enhancement of compensation by the reference court is not sustainable. 4. Since the lands acquired have got potential value and they are adjoining to the Yellandu town Railway Station, Tiles Factory and Singareni Collieries Company quarters and since the relevant period of sale deeds were not taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer, the reference court enhanced the compensation basing on the oral and documentary evidence on record. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Further against O.P.No.355 of 1987, the State preferred the appeal A.S.No.466 of 1994 and the same was dismissed and it has attained finality. 5. In the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 23.10.2009 Stp