JUDGMENT Challa Kondanda Ram, J. 1. Since the Orders challenged in these appeals are arising out of the same Award i.e. Award No. 6/92, dated 19-02-1999, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Both the appeals have been preferred by the appellant-Referring Officer against the Orders dated 10-03-2004, passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in O.P. Nos. 22 of 2000 and 23 of 2000. 2. Pursuant to the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), the Government acquired an extent of Ac. 0-52 cents each of the appellants situated in R.S. No. 6/6 of Pinapaka village, G. Konduru Mandal for establishment of storage and distribution facility of petroleum products by Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., along with other property over an extent of Ac. 19-61 cents. Award No. 6/92, dated 19-02-1999 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (in short "LAO") fixing the market value of the land at ` 1,42,000/- per acre. The respondents-claimants not being satisfied with the award amount had filed protest petitions and sought reference to the civil Court under Section18 of the Act. Accordingly, references were made and the same were numbered as L.A.O.P. Nos. 22 and 23 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 3. The respondents-claimants, to support their claim had examined themselves as P.W. 1, in both the appeals, and on behalf of the appellant-referring officer, one N. Seetharamaiah, who was Mandal Revenue Officer, G. Koduru Mandal, was examined as R.W. 1 in both the petitions. No documents were marked on both sides. After full trial the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, enhanced the compensation amount from ` 1,42,000/- to ` 2,50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits as provided under the Act. 4. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.I.I.C., appearing on behalf of the appellant-Reference Officer would submit that the enhancement of compensation from `1,42,000/- to ` 2,50,000/- is excessive and without any basis and further the court below ought to have seen that in the reference applications the claimants' claim is only for `2,00,000/- per acre, but the learned Judge enhanced the same to ` 2,50,000/-; that the acquired lands were far away from the lands covered under the sale transaction in Item No. 25/96 and the same was not comparable sale transaction. 5. Sri Venu Gopal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants would support the findings of the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the appeals. 6. We have gone through the evidence on record and the Orders of the Court below. As seen from the evidence on record, the claimants in both the appeals were examined as P.W. 1 and they deposed in similar lines that their lands were acquired for establishment of storage and distribution of petroleum products by the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, but the Land Acquisition Officer has intentionally discarded the sale transactions that took place for higher value without any valid reasons and in particular the sale transaction at item No. 25/96, which is at a distance of one furlong to the acquired lands which fetched about ` 3,00,000/- per acre. They further deposed that the sale covered under item No. 4/97 was relied upon by the Referring Officer, but strangely from the sale price a deduction of 35% was made by the Referring Officer without there being any justifiable reason. They also deposed that the Corporation itself had sold at ` 3,00,000/- per acre for the purpose of establishing industrial estate. 7. R.W. 1-N. Sitharamayya, Mandal Revenue Officer, G. Konduru Mandal, who was examined on behalf of the Referring Officer, had reiterated the award proceedings in his chief-examination. But during the cross-examination he admitted that the acquired land is situated at a distance of one furlong from the land covered under Item No. 4/97 and as a matter of fact, Item Nos. 4/97 to 17/97 which were referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer were transactions reflecting about `3,00,000/- per acre. Further, he had admitted that the land covered under sale Item No. 25/96 is similar in nature of the acquired land but was not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, However, it is on record that the land covered under sale Item No. 25/96 was adjacent to Rand B road. 8. The learned trial Judge solely basing on the oral deposition of the claimant without there being any documentary evidence, by putting the burden on the Land Acquisition Officer, had enhanced the market value from ` 1,42,000/- to ` 2,50,000/- per acre. 9. 8. The learned trial Judge solely basing on the oral deposition of the claimant without there being any documentary evidence, by putting the burden on the Land Acquisition Officer, had enhanced the market value from ` 1,42,000/- to ` 2,50,000/- per acre. 9. It is well settled by various judgments that the burden is on the claimants to establish by bringing cogent evidence about the prevailing market value as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In this context a reference can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Sangunthala v. Thasildar 2010 (2) SCJ 921 : (2010) 3 SCC 661 , Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala AIR 1990 SC 2192 and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others (3) 1998 ALT (Rev.) 74 (SC) : (1997) 6 SCC 41 , wherein it was held that in a claim for enhancement of compensation the burden was heavy on the claimants to prove by evidence that the acquired land was capable of fetching higher compensation than the compensation awarded. 10. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, we do not find any justification for the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada to enhance the compensation from ` 1,42,000/- to ` 2,50,000/- per acre. At the same time we are conscious of the fact that in the cases of compulsory acquisition of land, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer even at the first instance to determine the true market value of the land under acquisition and award just compensation by taking into account the guidelines set out under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. It may not be out of place to point out, though the jurisdiction of this Court under Section54 of the Act is against the order passed by the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, the scope of enquiry and the duty cast on the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act is with respect to arriving at the proper compensation payable to the land under acquisition. (As) the amount as determined by the Civil Court subject to appeal, is the compensation that would become payable as if the said amount is determined by the LAO under Section 11 of the Act. 11. (As) the amount as determined by the Civil Court subject to appeal, is the compensation that would become payable as if the said amount is determined by the LAO under Section 11 of the Act. 11. In the present case, it is an admitted fact even in the evidence of R.W. 1 that in the vicinity of the acquired land as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, transactions of the land took place at higher prices than `1,42,000/-. As a matter of fact, by Notification dated 22-03-1996, an extent of Ac. 23-73 cts., of land was acquired for the similar purpose at the instance of I.P.B. Limited, a petroleum distribution company of Government of India. It is not in dispute that the land acquired under Notification dated 22-03-1996 was adjacent to the land covered in the present case. On reference, the very same learned II Additional senior Civil Judge, in O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 of 2001, had fixed the market value at ` 1,50,000/- as against ` 45,000/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. This common judgment in O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 of 2001 was subject matter of A.S. Nos. 3712 of 2004, 30 and 41 of 2005 and 75 of 2006, and (in) these appeals filed by the Referring Officer the compensation as awarded by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada were confirmed by us vide judgment delivered to-day. Inasmuch as the lands covered in the present appeals which are subject matter of the Award are admittedly, being in the vicinity, we consider it just and proper to fix the market value as ` 1,50,000/- per acre as against ` 45,000/- (sic.) per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, with all statutory benefits as provided under Sections23(1-A), 28 and 34 of the Act. 12. Accordingly, the impugned orders and decrees are modified holding that the respondents-claimants are entitled to the Market value at the rate of ` 1,50,000/- per acre, as against the amount of ` 2,50,000/- per acre granted by the trial Court, with all statutory benefits as provided under Sections 23(1-A),28 and 34 of the Act. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these appeals, shall stand closed. Registry is directed to issue modified orders and decrees forthwith.