THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.Nos.3066, 3124 and 3135 of 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Since these appeals arise out of a common order, dated 23- 06-1999, passed in O.P.Nos.284, 287 and 290 of 1991 respectively on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, the same are heard and taken up together for disposal by way of common judgment. These appeals are preferred by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) challenging the common judgment and decree, dated 23-06-1999 in O.P.Nos.284, 287 and 290 of 1991 respectively. An extent of 1/3rd share each of the respective respondents-claimants in A.S.No.3135 of 1999 and A.S.No.3066 of 1999 in 4 acres of dry land and an extent of Ac.1-18 cents of wet land of the respondent-claimant in A.S.No.3124 of 1999 situated at J.Annavaram village, Yeleswaram Mandal, were acquired for the purpose of formation and submersion of Yeleru Reservoir Project, pursuant to 4(1) notification published on 24-08-1987 and Award No.20 of 89, dated 06-07-1989, was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing the market value at Rs.21,000/- per acre in respect of category-I lands, Rs.16,000/- per acre in respect of category-II lands and Rs.12,000/- per acre in respect of category-III lands. Not satisfied with the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respective respondents-claimants sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Civil Court and the Reference Court, basing on Ex.R-2-certified copy of judgment of this Court in A.S.No.2733 of 96 and batch, dated 26-02-1998, fixed the market value @ Rs.55,000/- per acre in respect of category-I lands, Rs.50,000/- per acre in respect of category-II lands and Rs.40,000/- per acre in respect of category-III lands. A perusal of the impugned judgment goes to show that the Reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the aforesaid judgment of this Court, had rightly fixed the compensation. Therefore, we do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as such, the appeals are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. However, it is needless to say that the respective respondents-claimants are entitled to interest on additional market value as well as solatium as per the law declared by the Apex Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India (AIR 2001 SC 3516). There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: 13-09-2010 Prv