Judgment : L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J :- A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was published on 13.12.1991 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh proposing to acquire Acs 41.00 of land situated at Suryaraopet Revenue Village, Kakinada for the benefit of the 2nd respondent herein i.e., M/s. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited. The procedure under Chapter-VII of the Act was invoked, since the beneficiary was a private limited company. The land of the appellant herein, being an extent of Acs. 4.49 cents in Survey No.244/2 of the said village was also covered by the notification. 2. After the prescribed formalities were completed, the Land Acquisition Officer, Kakinada, the 1st respondent herein, passed an award, dated 2.12.1991, fixing the market value for the land of the appellant at the rate of Rs.37,000/- per acre. Since the 1st respondent doubted the entitlement of the appellant to receive the compensation, he referred the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. It was taken up by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the reference was answered in favour of the appellant. 3. Thereupon, he received the compensation awarded by the first respondent under protest and sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the matter was taken up as OP No.161 of 1996 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The trial Court passed a decree, dated 11.04.2005, enhancing the market value to Rs. 47,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with that, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Act, seeking further enhancement. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that for the entire land covered by the notification, the 1st respondent passed one award, dated 25.1.1991, covering an extent of Acs.6.11 cents and another award on 24.12.1991, covering an extent of Acs.34.94 cents. He contends that the owners of the lands covered by both the awards sought for reference and in OP No.203 of 1993 and Batch, the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada enhanced the market value to Rs.4,35,600/- per acre, based upon a document marked as Ex.B2, which reflected the market value at the rate of Rs.6,53,400/- per acre, through order, dated 30.10.2010. He contends that the 2nd respondent filed AS No.1356 of 2001 and Batch and this Hon'ble Court through a common judgment, dated 9.10.2006, reduced the market value to Rs.3,25,000/- per acre. According to the learned Counsel, the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3625 of 2007 and Batch, through order, dated 21.11.2008 and that the appellant is entitled for similar benefit. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the 1st respondent and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submit that the land of the appellant stands on a different footing and the very fact that the reference in his case came to be made in the year 1996 discloses the same. It is pleaded that the findings recorded in OP No.203 of 1993 and Batch cannot be taken into account for this case, in view of the fact that the reference in the case of the appellant came to be made only in the year 1996. 6. As observed at the threshold, an extent of Acs.41.00 of land was notified for acquisition for establishment of greenbelt around the fertilizer factory established by the 2nd respondent. Though two separate awards were passed and different standards were adopted by the 1st respondent for awarding compensation, it ultimately emerged before this Court that the entire land needs to be treated on the same parlance. Some curious development has taken place vis-a-vis the land of the appellant. 7. It is not in dispute that only one notification was issued and except in respect of the land of the appellant, proceedings at every level in respect of the entire land, progressed in tandem. OP No.203 of 1993 and Batch came to be disposed of through a common order, dated 30.10.2010. Voluminous evidence was taken on record in that batch of O.Ps. The trial Court was guided, mostly by Ex.B2, which reflected the market value of Rs.6,53,400/- per acre. It fixed the market value at Rs.4,35,600/- per acre, after deducting one-third. In a batch of appeals, being AS No.1356 of 2001, this Court treated the entire land on the same footing and reduced the market value to Rs.3,25,000/- per acre. That became final with the dismissal of S.L.Ps. filed by the 2nd respondent. 8. It fixed the market value at Rs.4,35,600/- per acre, after deducting one-third. In a batch of appeals, being AS No.1356 of 2001, this Court treated the entire land on the same footing and reduced the market value to Rs.3,25,000/- per acre. That became final with the dismissal of S.L.Ps. filed by the 2nd respondent. 8. But for the fact that the 1st respondent doubted the entitlement of the appellant to receive the compensation, his claim would have become part of the batch at every stage. On a reference made under Section 30 of the Act in respect of the land of the appellant, the trial Court decided the controversy about the entitlement of the appellant to receive the compensation through its order, dated 26.8.1994. Soon thereafter, the appellant received the compensation under protest and made a request to refer the matter to the civil Court. The reference came to be taken up as OP No.161 of 1996. Thus, there was a gap of three years between the batch of O.Ps. and other cases and the O.P. in respect of the land of the appellant. 9. As observed earlier, the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada passed an order, dated 30.10.2010, in OP No.203 of 1993 and Batch fixing the market value at Rs.4,35,600/- per acre. That judgment was filed as Ex.A4 in OP No.161 of 1996. Ignoring the fact that the land was covered by the same notification and judgment was rendered by the same Court, the trial Court ignored it by simply observing that Ex.A4 is the subject-matter of the appeal before this Court. The approach was totally untenable. In case there existed any difference as to the geological features or other aspects, he could have certainly distinguished one from the other. The Court could not have ignored its own order. Determination on the same lines would have certainly been subject to the same result, that ensued in the appeal. 10. Be that as it may, the market value indicated in OP No.203 of 1993 and Batch was slashed down to Rs.3,25,000/- per acre in AS No.1356 of 2001 and Batch. The 2nd respondent carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the form of SLP No.3625 of 2007 and Batch. The appeals were dismissed on 21.11.2008. 10. Be that as it may, the market value indicated in OP No.203 of 1993 and Batch was slashed down to Rs.3,25,000/- per acre in AS No.1356 of 2001 and Batch. The 2nd respondent carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the form of SLP No.3625 of 2007 and Batch. The appeals were dismissed on 21.11.2008. It is not even the case of the respondents that the land of the appellant is in any way different or distinguishable from the one covered by OP No.203 of 1993 and Batch. The inescapable conclusion is that the appellant is entitled for the same compensation on the basis of the market value that was fixed by this Court in AS No.1356 of 2001 and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. While passing the orders in an application for restoration of the appeal, we imposed a condition that the appellant shall not be entitled for interest for one year. 12. Hence, the appeal is allowed enhancing the market value for the land of the appellant acquired through notification, dated 13.12.1991, to Rs.3,25,000/- per acre. He shall be entitled to all statutory benefits, except that he shall not be entitled for interest payable under Section 28 of the Act for a period of one year. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.