IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.1175 OF 2001 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer Land Acquisition, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... Appellant And Smt. Chenna Lakshamma …Respondent AND APPEAL SUIT No.1266 OF 2001 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer Land Acquisition, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... Appellant And Kalava Deva Rayulu …Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT Nos.1175 and 1266 OF 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) A.S.No.1175 of 2001 is directed against the award in O.P.No.91 of 1991 and A.S.No.1266 of 2001 is directed against the award in O.P.No.93 of 1991, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandyal, dated 24.10.2000, which awards were rendered in pursuance of the common order in O.P.No.73 of 1991 and batch. 2. The common order in question was already the subject of adjudication in the connected appeals arising against the same common order before this Court and a Division Bench held in First Appeal No.1440 of 2001 on 16.11.2004 that having regard to the involvement of trivial and insignificant amounts, the appeal, in the considered opinion of their Lordships, ought not to have been preferred by the State. Though their Lordships stated that the judgment would not operate as a precedent, the appeal was dismissed without costs. 3. Another Division Bench of this Court was dealing with four appeals arising out of the same common order in A.S.No.1267 of 2001 and batch and in the judgment, dated 28.12.2006, the Division Bench reduced the compensation from Rs.50,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre, of course with all the consequential statutory benefits. 4. It is seen from the material on record that the land of the claimant in O.P.No.91 of 1991 acquired by the Government is Ac. 0.32 cents, whereas the land of the claimant in O.P.No.93 of 1991 so acquired is Ac. 0.17 cents. They are trivial extents and the value of the first Appeal is Rs.13,600/-, whereas the value of the second appeal is Rs.7,225/-. The impugned common order shows that the claimants were living by cultivation of the lands acquired and any reduction in the compensation awarded by the reference Court at this distance of time will make the compensation received by the claimants in real terms, much less than what will be ordered, due to the decline in the value of the rupee in between. The claimants deprived of their properties for a public purpose, need not be further disadvantaged by interference with the awards in these two cases, as the amounts involved can certainly be considered to be too trivial and insignificant, like in A.S.No.1440 of 2001. Both the appeals have also to consequentially fail on the same lines. 5. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed without costs, but this judgment shall not operate as a precedent in any other case. _______________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) _______________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) Date: 31st December, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT Nos.1175 and 1266 OF 2001 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) December 31, 2010. KL