THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD LAAS NOs.837 & 838 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Both these appeals arise under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {“the Act” for brevity}, assailing the correctness of the orders dated 24-01-2006 in O.P.Nos.42 and 43 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, in determining the compensation fixed by the Court below. The brief facts of the case are that as per the notifications dated 26-1-2001 & 28-6-2002 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of formation of right side flood bank of Tungabhadra barrage, popularly known as ‘Sunkesual barrage’. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre in OP No.42 of 2003 and at Rs.88,000/- per acre in OP No.43 of 2003. Not being satisfied with the same, the claimants sought reference. The Court below, after evaluating the material placed before it, fixed the market value of the land at Rs.2,15,937/- per acre in OP No.42 of 2003 and at Rs.2,31,875/- per acre in O.P.No.43 of 2003, apart from granting other benefits by placing reliance on Ex.B1-certified copy of the registered sale deed. During the course of arguments, learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing on behalf of the State pointed out that in similar set of facts in A.S.No.73 of 2003, dated 20.4.2006, this Court fixed the market rate at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. As can be seen from the Judgment relied on by the learned Government Pleader, it indicates that the lands therein were acquired in the year 1997, but in the present cases, the lands were acquired in the year 2002 and therefore, it cannot be said that the aforesaid judgment applies to the present cases on hand. Further, it cannot be said that the compensation granted by the Court below is not just and reasonable. Accordingly, the both the appeals are dismissed. However, the respondents-claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act. No costs. ___________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ____________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J rkk Dated: 21-3-2011