THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NOS.2073 & 2131 OF 2000 Dated. 01-12-2010 Between: Union of India, rep. by General Manager, SCR, Secunderabad and another …Appellants Vs. Innamuri Annapoornamma and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NOS.2073 & 2131 OF 2000 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT (Per GR,J) These appeals by the Union of India represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad are directed against a common order dated 26-11-1999 of the learned reference court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in four (4) LAOPs including O.P.No.155 and 158 of 1986. An extent of Ac.0.478 cents of land situated in Sy.No.177/2 B-1 and an extent of Ac.0.269 cents in the same survey number in Chinaravuru Village, Tenali Taluq, Guntur District were acquired by the State for the benefit of the appellants-Railways for converting Chinaravuru Railway Halt Station into a flag Station. The notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short “the Act”) was issued on 25-03-1982 in respect of the aforestated and other lands in the same survey number. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.1,21,000/- per acre and awarded statutory benefits on that basis as well. Aggrieved, the claimants sought reference and the claims of the four claimants including the respondents in these appeals came to be considered and adjudicated by the common order dated 26- 11-1999 of the reference court. The reference court determined the market value at Rs.65/- per square yard relying on Exs.A-1 and A-2 sale deeds executed on 06-11-1979 in the same survey number. The reference court was not inclined to grant any enhancement on the valuation as reflected in Exs.A-1 and A-2 despite the passage of 1 ½ years between the dates of Exs.A-1 and A-2 and the notification under Section 4(1) of the lands acquired in the present acquisition. Aggrieved by the award of the reference court insofar as O.P.Nos.159 and 160 of 1986 are concerned, the appellants herein filed A.S.No.2091 of 2000 and 74 of 2001. This court by the judgment dated 22-03-2007 dismissed the said appeals. The learned Division Bench of this court by the said judgment rejected the self same contentions were sought to be reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellants Sri T.Ramakrishna Rao in these appeals, namely, that the reference court ought to have assessed the market value of the acquired land on acreage basis and not on square yard basis and that Exs.A-1 and A-2 cannot be taken as comparable sales for the purpose of determining the market value since small and negligible extents of land was purchased under the said instruments. This court referred to the observations of the reference court that the Town Surveyor, Tenali who testified as RW.1 had admitted that the lands covered under Exs.A-1 and A-2 were in built up area and the lands acquired are two or three feet lower in level and have no potential value. This court rejected the contention with regard to transactions under Exs.A-1 and A-2 being a smaller extent of land. This court held that the acquisition in respect of each of the claimants was also not of large extents and therefore Exs.A-1 and A-2 could validly be taken into consideration. Further this court held that the evidence on record discloses that there was a municipal market adjacent to the western side, residential houses on the northern side and a railway track on the southern side of the land acquired and therefore the lands are located in a strategic locality and the conclusion of the trial court determining the market value at Rs.65/- per square yard calls for no interference. These appeals are filed by the Railways as an interested party under Section 54 of the Act. For reasons akin to those recorded in the judgment of this court dated 22-03-2007 in AS No.2090 of 2000 and 74 of 2001 which pertains to the same judgment from which these appeals arise and in respect of the lands in the same survey number and acquired by the same notification and process, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the reference court against which these appeals are preferred. The principles of Section 28-A of the Act also guide us in the matter of declining appellate interference. The Railways have admittedly not preferred Appeals against the order of this court dated 22-03-2007 and therefore it would be inequitable on the part of the Railways which is an instrumentality of the State to contend that other claimants whose lands were acquired under the same survey number and under the same process of acquisition would be entitled to higher compensation qua the judgment of the reference court as affirmed by the earlier judgment of this court dated 22-03-2007 but the claimants/respondents herein would not be so entitled. The Railways may not take such an inequitable stand in litigation as would be inconsistent with its obligation as an instrumentality of the State. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in these appeals which are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 01-12-2010 TSNR