ORDER : These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.S. No.1595 of 2001, 08.03.2007, whereby and where under the High Court has allowed the appeal filed by the claimants and enhanced the compensation awarded to Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre without any categorization. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired land measuring 4.67 cents situated in various survey numbers of Thimminaidupalem village for the purpose of formation of 100 feet Karakambadi road from Leelamahal to Mangalam Housing Complex for the benefit of Tirupati Urban Development Authority, Tirupati. The possession of the land was taken on 7.01.1984, prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"). Thereafter, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act, and subsequently another notification was issued under Section 6 of the Act on finalisation of the proceedings. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "the L.A.O.") classified the land into three categories and fixed the market value at Rs. 20,000/- per acre in respect of category No.1 lands, Rs. 30,000/- per acre in respect of category No.2 lands, and Rs. 70,000/- per acre in respect of category No.3 lands by Award No.3 of 1989, dated 30.06.1989. 4. Not being satisfied with the compensation so awarded by the L.A.O., the claimants made an application to the L.A.O. under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the L.A.O. referred the case of the respondents to the Reference Court where it was registered as O.P No.47 of 1990. 5. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, the Reference Court was of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the L.A.O. was not adequate. Accordingly, by judgment and order dated 31.08.2000, the Reference Court held that the market value of the category No.1 lands should be ascertained at Rs. 25,000/- per acre and the market value of the category No.2 lands should be ascertained at Rs. 35,000/- per acre. Accordingly, by judgment and order dated 31.08.2000, the Reference Court held that the market value of the category No.1 lands should be ascertained at Rs. 25,000/- per acre and the market value of the category No.2 lands should be ascertained at Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The Reference Court further held that the claimants in respect of land category Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to solatium at 30% and interest at 12% per annum from the date of the Section 4 notification till the date of award on the enhanced compensation, and were further entitled to interest at 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession of the land and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of payment on the enhanced compensation. However, the Reference Court confirmed the market value fixed by the L.A.O. in respect of category No.3 lands. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, the claimants preferred an appeal before the High Court. The claimants would inter alia contend before the High Court that the acquired lands were located in a strategic location within the municipal limits of Tirupathi town and hence there was no basis for classification of lands into three categories. 7. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, the High Court was of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the L.A.O. and the Reference Court was not adequate. The High Court found merit in the contentions of the claimants, and accordingly enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre without any categorization. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order so passed by the High Court, the State is before us in Civil Appeal No.10624 of 2010, whereas the claimants are before us in Civil Appeal No.2184 of 2011. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. The learned counsel for the State would assail the judgment and order passed by the High Court and would inter alia submit that the L.A.O. has arrived at the correct market value of the land and hence the Reference Court and High Court were not justified in enhancing the market value of the land without any evidence. 11. Per contra, the claimants would assail the judgment and order passed by the High Court and would inter alia pray for the compensation awarded by the High Court to be enhanced. 12. 11. Per contra, the claimants would assail the judgment and order passed by the High Court and would inter alia pray for the compensation awarded by the High Court to be enhanced. 12. Having carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the Reference Court, and also the documents on record, we find no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court. We are of the considered opinion that both these appeals, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly.