HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO A.S.No.249 of 2002 Dated: 03-06-2010 Between: The Govt. of A.P., through Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Singoor Project, Sangareddy. Appellant AND Smt.Venkamma & Another. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO A.S.No.249 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak, dated 19.11.1999 made in O.P.No.2 of 1996, whereby the learned Senior Judge answered the reference in favour of the claimants enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs.12,500/- from Rs.5,000/- per acre. By issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 28.5.1983, the land of the claimants-respondents herein situated in Sy.No.724/A and 724/C to an extent of Ac.3.15 gts. each, totally, admeasuring Ac.6.30 gts. was acquired by Government for the purpose of submergence of Singoor Project. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry, passed an award on 7.4.1986 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,000/- per acre as against the claim of Rs.20,000/- per acre. The claimants having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value, sought for reference to the Civil Court for due determination of the market value. On reference being made, the claimants appeared and filed claim statements before the reference Court claiming compensation at Rs.20,000/- per acre. The reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.12,500/- per acre following its earlier order made in O.P.No.161 of 1987, dated 1.4.1989, marked as Ex.A.1 since the land covered by Ex.A.1 is situated in the same village and the acquisition was for the same purpose. The said order covered by Ex.A.1 was also confirmed by this Court in A.S.No.452 of 1992, marked as Ex.A.2. Having regard to the fact that the acquisition covered by Ex.A.1 is for the very same purpose, and that the land is situated in the same village, and that the Land Acquisition Officer failed to substantiate that the land covered by O.P.No.161 of 1987 is having distinguished potentiality than the acquired land, there is no reason to grant the very same compensation fixed by the reference Court in O.P.No.161 of 1987 to the claimants herein also. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the enhancement of compensation made by the reference Court. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ JUNE 03, 2010 RAJA ELANGO, J. Tsr.