ORDER: Dr. B. Siva Sankar Rao, J. The review petitioner Sri. P. Narasimhulu as party-in-person sought for review of the Judgment and decree dated 12-8-2009 in L.A.A.S. No. 170 of 2007, which is covered by common judgment with reference to (1) L.A.A.S. Nos. 163 of 2007 filed by Land Acquisition Officer against judgment and decree dated 20-11-2006 in O.P.No. 85 of 1995 of learned Senior Civil Judge. Madanpalle, showing the claimants as respondent Nos. 1 to 17 including legal representatives of late claimant No. 8 as 16 and 17 and the review petitioner was Respondent No. 11 therein, (2) L.A.A.S. No. 1024 of 2007 filed by 10 claimant, (3) L.A.A.S. No. 173 of 2007 filed by one of the claimants i.e., Respondent No. 12 Sulochanamma of L.A.A.S. No. 163 of 2007 and (4) L.A.A.S. No. 170 of 2007 filed by the present review petitioner/R-11 of 163 of 2007. Thus, there are three sets of appeal by claimants and one set of appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer against the judgment and decree dated 20-11-2006 of O.P. No. 85 of 1995 covered by comma judgment dated 12-8-2009 of the Honourable Division Bench consisting of Justice B. Prakash Rao, since retired and Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, one of us. The review sought for is based upon the order of the Honourable Apex Court dated 7-4-2015 in Civil Appeal No. 8263 of 2009. 2. The factual matrix required to mention in nutshell is that based on the requisition of the General Manager (P&L), A.P.I.I.C Limited, Hyderabad for establishment and expansion of Industrial Development Area by said A.P.I.I.C. Limited for acquisition of Ac. 87.53 cents of land at Valasapalle village of Madanapalle Mandal viz., Ac. 1-81 cents in S.No. 503, Ac. 0-63 cents in S.No. 502, Ac. 3-06 cents of S.No. 486 and Ac. 1-06 cents out of Ac. 2-30 cents in S.No. 488/489 and Ac. 87.53 cents of land at Valasapalle village of Madanapalle Mandal viz., Ac. 1-81 cents in S.No. 503, Ac. 0-63 cents in S.No. 502, Ac. 3-06 cents of S.No. 486 and Ac. 1-06 cents out of Ac. 2-30 cents in S.No. 488/489 and Ac. 80-81 cents in S.No. 485 within its sub-divisions was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 10-2-1994 by dispensing enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act invoking urgency under Section 17(4) of the Act by appointing Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle to perform the functions of the Collector for the purpose of acquisition and after declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 20-2-1994 and same were also published in local daily newspapers respectively and other publicity at village and hamlets in the locality. Out of Ac. 80-97 cents acquired from Ac. 83.81 cents in S.No. 485, the land belongs to the review petitioner - Sri P. Narasimhulu is about Ac. 39-20 cents or so, besides some other extent out of S.No. 488/499 and also some other extent in S.No. 503. The Land Acquisition Officer by award No. 1/GPM/ 94.95, dated 25-8-1994 based on the claim made by the respective claimants of the market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre (vide page Nos. 12 and 13 of the award), and by referring to the Photostat copies of the documents of January, 1994 and by saying the proposal for acquisition was initiated in the year 1992 itself leave about the claim additionally for trees also, with 30% solatium on market value, 12% as additional market value on the land value from the date of draft notification to the date of award, fixed the market value by dividing the acquired land into three categories of the value ranging from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre for cultivable and Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- for the uncultivable lands on the following criteria :- The lands proposed for acquisition from the inspection with reference to the survey and sub-division records scrutinised indicates at a distance of six kilometres from Madanapalle town towards Eastern side of Madanapalle-Chittoor and out of total extent of Ac.80-97 cents proposed for acquisition in S.No. 485/3, an extent of Ac.5-84 cents completely covered by rocks and an extent of Ac. 13-16 cents covered by hillock and boulders which are unfit for cultivation and small river-vanka called as Valasapalle Cheruvu Vanka is passing through S.No. 485/3, where there is an electrical transformer, there are trees and permanent structures viz., a dilapidated well, a dilapidated daddalam, 21 big and 23 medium Tamarind trees, one Palmyra tree and 65 leaf trees like Kanuga, Vapa, Moduga, Kunkudu, toddy and miscellaneous and the well and the Daddalam completely dilapidated and with no value to fix and Tamarind trees be taken on capitalized value as per the Government Memo No. 644/K2/85 dated 20-9-1986, taken at Rs.280/- for the palmirah tree, for other trees the total yield value of fire wood estimated at 10 cart loads of Rs.120/- each and for the 44 tamarind trees arrived Rs.2,87,200/- and in S.No. 486 for one tamarind tree arrived at Rs.8,800/- and other trees of fire wood value taken Rs.720/- and in S.No. 488/489 palmirah tree value taken at Rs.280/- and other trees for fire wood taken at Rs.240/- and the land value as on the date of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act notification on 10-2-1994 with reference to the sales furnished by Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle. There were 26 sale transactions of which 12 for smaller extents each below Ac. 0.03 cents for house sites purpose near Krishnapuram, H/o. Valasapalle, the house sites for the small extents supra cannot be the criteria and for sale transaction of four extents of the wet and dry lands those are interested sales between land owners and those of the land proposed for acquisition showing higher value to get higher compensation, that cannot be the criteria and there is another sale transaction of Ac. 6-00 cents in S.No. 497/ B1 dated 30-10-1992 at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre covered by sale agreement and not a sale to rely and coming to other sale transactions referred of the years 1993 and 1991, one is for Rs.60,007/- per acre in S.No. 512 and other is Rs.40,000/- per acre in S.No. 505 which arc plain agricultural lands, whereas the lands under acquisition are dry lands and that was taken consideration for the extent covered by S.No. 485/3 part of Ac. 25-43 cents, S.Nos. 502 and 503 valued at Rs.40,000/- per acre and for Ac. 25-43 cents, S.Nos. 502 and 503 valued at Rs.40,000/- per acre and for Ac. 5-15 cents in S.No. 485/3 part covered by hillock and boulders taken the value at Rs.20,000/- per acre and for other extent in S.No. 488/489 to the extent fit for cultivation and remaining Ac.7-11 cents with rocks and bounders taken the value at Rs.15,000/- per acre and an extent of Ac. 6-74 cents with rocks and boulders in S.No. 485/3 and 486 taken the value at Rs.15,000/- per acre and for the extent covered by cultivation of Ac. 18-17 cents taken the value at Rs.30,000/- per acre by different values adopted. Within two weeks after said award, possession of the land was taken on 7-9-1994. 3. Said compensation fixed by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was sought for reference as utterly low to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was the subject matter of O.P. No. 85 of 1995 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle based on the reference, passed the award/order dated 20-11-2006, where the review petition is Respondent No. 11 as referred supra, from evidence recorded and on its appreciation with reference to facts and law by doubling the compensation of what was arrived by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land holding that meets the ends of Justice without disturbing the value of the trees arrived viz., by enhancement from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.80,000/- for cultivable land and from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/- for uncultivable land of first reach, Rs.35,000/- to Rs.70,000/- for cultivable land and Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/- for uncultivable land of second reach and Rs.30,000/- to Rs.60,000/- for cultivable land and Rs.15,000/-to Rs.30,000/- for uncultivable land of third reach with other statutory benefits available under amended Land Acquisition Act 68 of 1984 saying interest at 12% p.a. from the date of Section 4(1) notification for one year and subsequently at 15% p.a. and solatium at 30% on the enhanced amount after deducting amount already received to pay subject to any statutory deductions therefrom. 4. 4. Said O.P. No. 85 of 1995 award/order and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge was impugned in the appeal in L.A.A.S. No. 170 of 2007 by present review petitioner - Sri P. Narasimhutu with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the referring officer in answering the reference under Section 18 of the Act, from the enquiry simply doubled the compensation without considering actual market value and potentiality of the land that was acquired for commercial purpose of establishing industrial estate by A.P.I.I.C and the distinction drawn into three categories of land as uncultivable, dry, wet etc., in the same survey numbers are untenable and the learned Senior Civil Judge ignored the material evidence and relevant sale deeds. It is further urged at ground No. 6 that the learned Senior Civil Judge having observed emergency clause invoked for acquisition at the behest of A.P.I.I.C is not justified and even value of the land per acre is more than Rs.1,50,000/-, compensation paid to the claimants is meagre, however, failed to do justice. It is urged in ground No. 7 that learned Senior Civil Judge failed to consider damage caused on account of severance of portion of land and destruction of percolation tank in the acquired land caused consequential damage to the coconut trees and medicinal plants lying in the severed land and ignored the evidence of P.Ws. 14 and 15, technical experts in this regard. 5. It is pursuant to the grounds raised in impugning the reference award/order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of all the four appeals viz., appeal of present review petitioner Sri Narasimhulu covered by L.A.A.S. No. 170 of 2007 and two appeals L.A.A.S. Nos. 173 and 1024 of 2007 of other claimants and of the Land Acquisition Officer in L.A.A.S. No. 163 of 2007 arisen out of same award/order and decree of the Senior Civil Judge in respect of the same subject matter, observed that there is an attack from both sides one challenging the correctness of the market rate determined as excessive and the others seeking for further enhancement. There is no dispute on the facts of date of Section 4(1) notification published in the Gazette on 10-2-1994 and the lands in question acquired of Ac. 82.53 cents comprising Ac. 80-97 cents in S.No. 485/3, Ac. 3.06 cents in S.No. 486, Ac. There is no dispute on the facts of date of Section 4(1) notification published in the Gazette on 10-2-1994 and the lands in question acquired of Ac. 82.53 cents comprising Ac. 80-97 cents in S.No. 485/3, Ac. 3.06 cents in S.No. 486, Ac. 1.06 cents in S.No. 482/2 and 489, Ac. 0-63 cents in S.No. 502/2 and Ac. 1.81 cents in S.No. 503 situated in the village Valasapalle of erstwhile Madanapalle Taluk, Chittoor District acquired for the purpose of Industrial Development Area on the requisition of the A.P.I.I.C Limited and possession was taken over on 7-9-1994 after the award dated 25-8-1994 where the Land Acquisition Officer followed belt system and made three categories, that is in each fit for cultivation, unfit for cultivation etc., and the lower Court by accepting the claim for further enhancement doubled the values fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in granting with other statutory benefits. The counsel on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer contended of no acceptable evidence or material to warrant further enhancement including for the Court below to double the value arrived by Land Acquisition Officer in seeking to allow the appeal by setting aside the compensation awarded by the learned Senior Civil Judge. Whereas, the claimants, in particular Sri. P. Narasimhulu as party in person, made submissions in detail seeking further enhancement of market value to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre with reference to documents place reliance before the learned Senior Civil Judge's Court and also by filing additional documents application in L.A.A.S.M.P. No. 502 of 2009 and same was allowed and considering the detailed submissions and the documents placed reliance, observed with reference to Section 23 of 2009 and same was allowed and considering the detailed submissions and the documents placed reliance, observed with reference to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and the land with trees thereunder and arriving of market value from that to the land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification, since the entire extent of land acquired is for Industrial Development Area, it is more a commercial activity by the State in encouraging private entrepreneurs to say land suitable for constructions and industrial activity having found for that purpose in the proposal for acquisition, thereby it cannot be taken as one exclusively used or could have been used for agricultural purposes and the values thereby. 6. 6. The Division Bench of this Court having discussed the evidence by reappreciation at length to the core of relevancy ultimately concluded that-taking consideration of the land acquired is for industrial use and from nearby existence of some units referred supra fixed the market value on all counts at Rs.1,50,.000/- per acre uniformly besides other statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act by allowing the three appeals of the claimants and dismissing the appeal of the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. It is against the appeal common Judgment, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred an appeal before the Apex Court and the 11th respondent - Sri P. Narasimhulu also preferred appeal before the Apex Court. Undisputedly the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer was ended in dismissal confirming the Division Bench judgment awarding compensation Rs.1,50,000/- per acre uniformly for entire land acquired with other statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act and at that stage Sri P. Narasimhulu has withdrawn his Civil Appeal No. 8263 of 2009 vide order dated 7-4-2015. The order of the Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No. 8263 of 2009 reads as follows : "This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in L.A.A.S.No. 170 of 2007, dated 12-8-2009. We have heard Shri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned senior counsel for the appellant. After arguing the matter for quite some time. Shri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam. learned senior counsel for the appellant, on instructions, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this civil appeal with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court. The permission sought for is granted and the civil appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. The appellant is permitted to file a review petition before the High Court within a month's time from today. If such a petition is filed within the time granted, we request the High Court to consider the same on merits, in accordance with law, without reference to the period of limitation. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the review petition that may be filed before the High Court. Ordered accordingly." 8. It is pursuant to which, present review application is filed. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the review petition that may be filed before the High Court. Ordered accordingly." 8. It is pursuant to which, present review application is filed. The grounds urged in the review application filed on 27-4-2015 are that the order in L.A.A.S. No. 170 of 2007 is contrary to law, evidence and probabilities of the case and on failure to appreciate clauses three and four of Section 23(1) of the Act which provides for damages sustained by the person interested at the time of Collector's taking possession of the land by reason of severing such land from his other land, and also for the reason of acquisition injuriously affecting his other property movable or immovable in any other manner or his earnings, to consider in awarding damages in respect of coconut trees and medicinal plants of the severed land for a sum of Rs.41,47,200/-, that the order is outcome of error apparent on the face of record by referring to expert opinion of P.Ws. 14 and 15 and not giving findings on the same which would though entitled the review petitioner/appellant for compensation towards damage or loss of earnings and also outcome of failure to appreciate Exs. B-33 to B-91 in respect of damages and efforts taken for establishment of projects besides failure to appreciate the material which would establish that petitioner has been deprived of his earnings by not being able to commence the project of Rs.200.00 crores as per Ex. A-2 and also from failure to consider Exs. B-10 to B-12 sale deeds showing market value of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre, however, only granted Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. 9. The additional grounds urged in L.A.A.S.M.P. No. 756 of 2015 of the review petitioner with leave of the Court since permitted are that the correspondence with Rural Development, Law and Justice Department, Government of India vide dated 29-11-2012, 19-12-2012 and 15-2-2013 maybe referred in support to his claim of compensation in respect of market value, additional market value, solatium and interest as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act, 2013') which came into force with effect from 1-1-2014. 10. 10. The L.A.A.S.M.P. No. 867 of 2015 filed to receive as additional material in the review petition are mostly born by record viz., award of the Land Acquisition Officer, award of the learned Senior Civil Judge and the evidence adduced before the Senior Civil Judge which can only be taken into consideration and not the other documents as new material and thereby that application was disposed of by treating only a set of material papers for not a new set of documents. 11. The counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, is with the contentions in opposing the review petition as won't lie either under law or on facts, apart from same does not disclose any valid or substantial grounds for review' of the decree passed in L.A.A.S. No. 170 of 2007, the review petitioner cannot file any new documents which were not filed or marked either before reference Court or before the High Court, the review petitioner having filed with Special Leave Petition (civil appeal) No. 8263 of 2009 against the order and decree in L.A.A.S. No. 170 of 2007, has withdraw on 4-7-2015, said appeal before the Supreme Court at his own in seeking permission for review that was only permitted by the Apex Court within a month's time from that day to consider on own merits as per law and without reference to limitation and without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of review and the claim made for trees and medicinal plants cannot be looked into as the same were not existing in the acquired land and merely because he could not manage the other land he cannot blame the State muchless on that ground claim any loss or damage for his own fault, that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the judgment in L.A.A.S. No. 170 of 2007 and power of review is not to correct any mistake nor appeal in disguise and no new grounds can be allowed to raise, that scope of review is very limited and thereby sought for dismissal of the review application. 12(a). 12(a). Heard both sides at length on merits of the matter from the material on record and on the scope of review and perused the material on record, including the respective written arguments, which are mostly repetition of the respective contentions referred supra and thereby not reproduced to avoid repetition. 12(b). The points arise for consideration from above material are : (I) Whether there are any grounds for review of the impugned judgment dated 12-8-2009 in L.A.A.S. No. 170 of 2007 and if so, to what extent either on the quantum of compensation awarded of Rs.1,50,000/- sought for enhancement more particularly with reference to Exs. B-10 to B-12 and as to any entitlement as compensation under Section 23(1) clauses third and fourth of the Act, 1894 for so called coconut or medicinal plants or other trees in the severed extent said to have been damaged or died in the year 1999, about five years after the acquisition and taken possession of the acquired land in the year 1994, and whether the Act, 2013 is applicable to the case on hand and same can be urged as a ground for review? (II) To what result? Point No.(I): 13. Though the scope of review is very limited, for not an appeal in disguise, keeping in view that the petitioner is a party in person; we have not restricted several of his submissions touching merits of the matter. We have therefore dealt with those aspects also in this order. 14. The undisputed facts are that, Ac. 87.53 cents of land at Valasapalle village of Madanapalle Mandal viz., Ac. 1-81 cents in S.No. 503, Ac. 0-63 cents in S.No. 502, Ac. 3-06 cents of S.No. 486 and Ac. 1-06 cents out of Ac. 2-30 cents in S.No. 288/289 and Ac. 14. The undisputed facts are that, Ac. 87.53 cents of land at Valasapalle village of Madanapalle Mandal viz., Ac. 1-81 cents in S.No. 503, Ac. 0-63 cents in S.No. 502, Ac. 3-06 cents of S.No. 486 and Ac. 1-06 cents out of Ac. 2-30 cents in S.No. 288/289 and Ac. 80-81 cents in S.No. 485 was the land covered by the acquisition vide draft Section 4(1) notification dated 10-2-1994 and as per the award No. 1/GPM/94-95, dated 25-8-1994 the Land Acquisition Officer, possession of the land was taken on 7-9-1994 and the Claimants were paid the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which they received on protest and on their request the matter was referred to civil court under Section 18 of the Act, which is covered by O.P.No. 85 of 1995 and same was disposed of by judgment and decree dated 20-11-2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle and the four appeals filed in L.A.A.S. Nos. 170, 173, 163 and 1024 of 2007 were disposed off by the Division Bench of this Court on dated 12-8-2009. 15. Suffice to say therefrom that as the claimants were paid the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which they received on protest and on their request the matter was even referred to civil court under Section 18 of the Act, the Act, 2013 has no application to the case on hand, apart from the same cannot be considered as a ground for review, even with reference to Sections 24 r/w 27 of the Act, 2013 and Section 31 of the Act, 1894. The reasons for the conclusion are : (a). As per Section 31 of the Act, 1894, (1) On making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation of as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. Provided...... Provided also.............Provided also .........(3) Notwithstanding.................... Provided...... Provided also.............Provided also .........(3) Notwithstanding.................... (4) Nothing in the...... (b). Further, what Section 27 of the Act, 2013 speaks of what is compensation the Collector has to determine is the market value of the land to I be acquired including for all assets attached to the land and total amount to be paid to the persons whose land acquired. It is to say what was the compensation determined by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is the Compensation and not any reference for enhancement and enhanced compensation from such reference answered and further in any appeal therefrom. In fact, in the case on hand as discussed supra, even appeals were disposed of on 12-8-2009 and that compensation was also paid and even Civil Appeal No. 8263 of 2009 with special leave filed, same was withdrawn vide order of the Honourable Apex Court dated 7-4-2015. A subsequent review application of L.A.A.S. No. 170 of 2007 dated 12-8-2009 is not a ground to invoke application of the Act, 2013. (c). Also because of what Section 24 of the Act, 2013 speaks for application of the provisions of the Act, 2013 is where even proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894, if no award was passed, but where award was passed the Act, 1894 alone that applies as if not repealed. It further no doubt speaks, that even award was passed the proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed if it was the award made five years back or prior to it to the commencement of the Act, 2013 and physical possession of land was not taken or compensation was not paid. In such a case the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. The proviso speaks further that where award was made and compensation in respect of majority of land holding was not deposited in the account of beneficiaries, then all the beneficiaries specified in the Section 4 notification for acquisition shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. There by the three Judge Bench expression of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Misrimal Solanki, 2014 (3) ALT 18 (SC) : 2014 ALT (Rev.) 96 (SC) : (2014) 3 SCC 183 that placed reliance has no application to the facts on hand. There by the three Judge Bench expression of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Misrimal Solanki, 2014 (3) ALT 18 (SC) : 2014 ALT (Rev.) 96 (SC) : (2014) 3 SCC 183 that placed reliance has no application to the facts on hand. The contention in claiming new Act, 2013 applies to him by referring to Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is thus not correct. 16. In Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) on the scope of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 it was held at paras 10 and 11 : "10. Insofar as sub-section (1) of Section 24 is concerned; it begins with non obstante clause. By this, Parliament has given overriding effect to this provision over all other provisions of 2013 Act. It is provided in clause (a) that where the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award under Section 11 is made, then the provisions of 2013 Act shall apply relating to the determination of compensation. Clause (b) of Section 24(1) makes provision that where land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act and award has been made under Section 11, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the 1894 Act as if that Act has not been repealed. 11. Section 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause. This provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1). Section 24(2) enacts that in relation to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and either of the two contingencies is satisfied, viz; (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken or (ii) the compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of such acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate Government still chooses to acquire the land which was the subject matter of acquisition under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. On the lapse of such acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate Government still chooses to acquire the land which was the subject matter of acquisition under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. The proviso appended to Section 24(2) deals with a situation where in respect of the acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries then all the beneficiaries specified in Section 4 notification become entitled to compensation under 2013 Act." Coming to facts in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), it was for the amount of compensation not paid for only deposited in Govt. Treasury on 31-1-2008, of the award passed more than five year ago, it was held the land acquisition proceedings were lapsed. It was held while interpreting the expression 'paid' used in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, includes deposit in Court and cannot be limited to mean offered or tendered, for mode and manner of deposit of compensation in court is provided in Section 31(2) of the Act, 1894, when land owners/persons interested refuse to accept compensation. 17. Coming to other aspects of the review for consideration, in the protest application of Sri P. Narasimhulu dated 31-8-1994, it was mentioned that the land acquired is worth above Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and he is accepting the compensation fixed for his Ac. 40-10 cents land without prejudice to his right to claim compensation at higher rate in the Sub-Court Madanapalle, in so seeking to refer the matter. It was not mentioned about any well and entitlement of compensation for the same or for any water source in the acquired land to be reserved for use even the Land Acquisition Officer in the award clearly mentioned that the Well and the Daddalam are completely dilapidated and with no value to fix. No doubt it was held by the Three Judge bench expression of the Apex Court in Ambya Kalya Mhatra v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 ALT (Rev.) 65 (SC) : 2011 (8) SCJ 526 : AIR 2011 (8) SCW 5749 that Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 limitation period applies only to make reference by specifying grounds of objection to award by Land Acquisition Officer and it does not require land owner to specify amount claimed. Amendment to amount claimed or heads of claim can be allowed by reference Court once there is objection to award as regards quantum of compensation. The Apex Court observed that : "12. The Land Acquisition Collector is not a court. When he determines the compensation, he does not adjudicate, but merely makes an offer for the acquired land, on behalf of the government. If the land owner considers the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Collector to be inadequate and makes a request within the prescribed period, for reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector is bound to refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation. He has no choice of refusing to make a reference, when the request is in time. Neither the act of making an award offering compensation nor the act of referring the matter to a civil court for determination of compensation at the request of the land owner are judicial functions, but are administrative functions. The legal position of an award by the Land Acquisition Officer vis-a-vis the proceedings in a reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act is explained thus by this Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, (1988) 3 SCC 751 :- "4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen: (I) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court. (2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court. (3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it." Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act (added in Maharashtra) providing that the Land Acquisition Collector shall be deemed to be a court sub-ordinate to the High Court, is therefore only for the limited purpose of enabling a revision under Section 115 of the Code to be filed against the order of the Collector under Section 18 of the Act, and not for any other purpose. 13. The assumption made by the High Court that when a reference is sought objecting to the amount of compensation, the claim for increase will have to be frozen with reference to he amount claimed in the application under Section 18 of the Act and therefore the quantum of the claim cannot subsequently be revised or increased is misconceived. Similarly, the assumption that if the claim for increase in an application for reference (relating to an acquisition involving a property consisting of land, building and trees), was only in regard to the compensation for the land, the land owner cannot thereafter make a grievance seeking increase in regard to the building or trees in the pleadings before the Reference Court and that in such a case, the Reference Court gets the jurisdiction to determine only the market value in regard to the land and not in regard to the building and trees, is also not correct. Section 18 does not require a land owner objecting to the amount of compensation, to make a claim for any specific amount as compensation, nor does nit require him to state whether the increase in compensation is sought only in regard to the land, or land and building, or land, building and trees. A land owner can seek reference to civil court, with reference to any one or more of the four types of objections permissible under Section 18 of the Act, with reference to the award. A land owner can seek reference to civil court, with reference to any one or more of the four types of objections permissible under Section 18 of the Act, with reference to the award. His objection can either be in regard to the measurement of the acquired land or in regard to the compensation offered by the Collector or in regard to persons to whom it is shown as payable or the apportionment of compensation among several claimants. Once the land owner states that he has objection to the amount of compensation, and seeks reference to the civil court, the entire issue of compensation is open before the Reference Court. Once the claimant satisfies the Reference Court that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate, the Reference Court proceeds to determine the compensation, with reference to the principles in Section 23 of the Act. As the Act does not require the person aggrieved/landowner to specify the amount of compensation sought, when objecting to the amount of compensation and seeking a reference, mentioning of the amount of compensation sought is optional. As there is no obligation to specify the amount in the application for reference, it can be specified in the claim statement filed before the Reference Court. The period of limitation in Section 18 of the Act has nothing to do with specifying the amount of compensation claimed. It therefore follows that if the reference is in regard to objection to the amount of compensation, the Reference cannot be permit any application for amendment of the claim relating to compensation. 14. The High Court has lost sight of the scheme of the Act. When a land is acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer makes an offer an behalf of the state government, in regard to the compensation. The offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer is not an adjudication of the market value or the compensation payable to the land owner. When such offer is made, the land owner has the choice of either accepting the compensation in full and final satisfaction or to seek a reference to the civil court for determination of the amount of compensation. When such offer is made, the land owner has the choice of either accepting the compensation in full and final satisfaction or to seek a reference to the civil court for determination of the amount of compensation. Where the land owner does not seek a reference within the time specified in Section 18 of the Act, he is deemed to have accepted the award and the award of the Land Acquisition Officer attains finality under Section 12 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act enables the land owner or person interested to make a written application to the Collector requiring his objection to the award, to be referred for determination by the court. In the application, he has to state whether his objection is in regard to measurement, quantum of compensation, persons entitled to compensation, or apportionment. He is also required to state the grounds on which he objection to the award, is taken. But the section does not require the land owner while seeking a reference, to specify the quantum of compensation demanded by him. Section 18 merely requires a land owner who has an objection to the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to require the matter to be referred to reference court for determination of compensation by specifying the grounds of objections to the award." The Apex Court further observed on the aspect of value of trees and well etc., on the land to be taken separate or part of the land value depends upon facts that : "21. The High Court has also held that once the compensation is awarded for the land, there cannot be additional or separate compensation for the trees. For this purpose, the High Court has relied upon the following observations of this Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 : "It is settled law that the Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation needs to be awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit - being trees. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation needs to be awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit - being trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over; once on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit-bearing trees. The definition of land includes the benefits which accrue from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on he basis of the value of the land as distinction from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as firewood and necessary compensation would be given." 22. We are afraid that the High Court has misread the said decision in regard of valuing the land and trees separately. If the land value had been determined with reference to the sale statistics or compensation awarded for a nearby vacant land, then necessarily, the trees will have to be valued separately. But if the value of the land has been determined on the basis of the sale statistics or compensation awarded for an orchard, that is land with fruit-bearing trees, then there is no question of again adding the value of the trees. Further, if the market value has been determined by capitalising the income with reference to yield, then also the question of making any addition either for the land or for the trees separately does not arise. In this case, the determination of market value was not with reference to the yield. Nor was the determination of market value in regard to the land with reference to the value of any orchard but was with reference to vacant agricultural land. In the circumstances, the value of the trees could be added to the value of the land." 18. From the above, coming to the case on hand, the Land Acquisition Officer already valued the trees separately of the acquired land and same not in dispute before the reference Court which confirmed the same. In the circumstances, the value of the trees could be added to the value of the land." 18. From the above, coming to the case on hand, the Land Acquisition Officer already valued the trees separately of the acquired land and same not in dispute before the reference Court which confirmed the same. Coming to well and water source from any tank, once the well and the Daddalam were completely dilapidated and with no value to fix and the lands acquired are dry and had no irrigation facilities as per the observation of the Land Acquisition Officer, can the same made a ground to claim compensation for it or with contention of it is a water source for the severed land that affected thereby and even taken consideration, what is awarded by the appeal judgment requires interference on any ground for review. The evidence of Sri Narasimhulu as RW 12 from his chief-affidavit before Civil Court dated 24-7-2003 was with nothing in this regard, so also even from his further chief-affidavit dated 7-12-2004, but for saying the A.P.I.I.C. has taken possession of the land more than 10 years back and not made any development of the land acquired to enable the entrepreneurs to establish their respective industries of their choice. There is no water and power supply to the plots and no bitumen tar road laid in the estate area as can be seen from the photos covered by Exs. B-40 to 44, that under guise of development of the area into plots by formation of internal roads and drains, A.P.I.I.C demolished the percolation tank by removal of its bunds and constructed road across where bund was in existence and thereby no scope for storage of water as can be seen from the photos Exs. B-44 to 49, also caused damage to supply channel existing for S. Nos. 485/1 and 488/1 severed from the acquired land which is the main source to irrigate his coconut garden and medicinal plants and he has taken photos Exs. B-50 to 57 and that from percolation tank damage he could not irrigate his coconut garden with ten trees of more than 30 years died and medicinal plants meant for export under bye back arrangement, of 1410 also died. 19. B-50 to 57 and that from percolation tank damage he could not irrigate his coconut garden with ten trees of more than 30 years died and medicinal plants meant for export under bye back arrangement, of 1410 also died. 19. From the above, the damage was alleged in 1999/2000 about five years after acquisition and not connected with acquisition much less to claim compensation for it under Section 23(1) clauses three or four of the Act, 1894, of any damage while taking possession from severance of portion of land out of total extent by acquisition of portion of land or for damage while taking possession caused to the nearby severed lands. Any evidence from the report of so called experts R.Ws. 14 and 15 are of the Advocate - Commissioner as R.W. 4 in this regard from his visit and report in December, 2000 by noting the features as on that date of the land is covered by school, college, buildings, Heritage Company, cold storage, saw mill, Sericulture Training Centre etc., that not even to show therefrom as to what was existing as on the date of Section 4(1) notification of February, 1994 for fixing compensation as criteria as to potentiality of land, the definition of which includes the benefits which accrue from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act, no way relevant for not a relevant material for consideration within the scope of Section 23(1) clauses three or four of the Act, 1894. The R.W. 14, Dr. K.S. Reddy retired Horticulture Assistant Professor of Tirupathi deposed of he visited the land only on 13-12-2004 which was only 10 years after the acquisition and noted formation of metal roads, digging of drainage channel and formation of plots in the acquired land and the bund of percolation tank and tank bund were also part of the land converted into plots and otherwise rain water could be pooling to the percolation tank as source for cultivation and he noticed the coconut trees and medicinal plants damaged in his estimation of its value. That evidence of him not even to show therefrom as to what was existing as on the date of Section 4(1) notification of February, 1994 for fixing compensation as criteria as to potentiality of land. That evidence of him not even to show therefrom as to what was existing as on the date of Section 4(1) notification of February, 1994 for fixing compensation as criteria as to potentiality of land. As per the evidence, the land acquired consists of that so called percolation tank and once it is part of land acquired, the purpose of acquisition is Very well known, there was no need to keep the unused place of erstwhile drain water catch up percolation area in tact contra to the purpose of acquisition. If at all it discloses for any arrangements to be made for the severed area by say Narasimhulu or other owners as the case may be and cannot complain for self-negligence or non-making of self-arrangements of digging any percolation tank in their own severed land for cultivation as an alternative arrangement. Even evidence of P.W. 15 Pavan Kumar of a private consultancy service regarding establishment of private industrial estates, that Sri Narasimhulu taken his opinion prior to acquisition of the land in 1994, from infrastructure facilities and he purchased land to set up private industrial estate there concerned, he did not raise protest for the acquisition, what his request for reference by accepting compensation on protest was the compensation is low, hence to refer to get higher compensation. He did not ask anything on this ground for enhancement. The report is on surmises and hypothesis that cannot be a base in the absence of cogent and consistent evidence in this regard to award any compensation on that count of affecting his avocation of proposed private industrial estate he thought of to develop. Therefrom what it discloses is the land fit for industrial area to set up industries by entrepreneurs and not as a cultivable land and what he claimed in the protest application even by considering this in mind even from that evidence of R.W. 15 of prior visit and giving opinion of that possible development, in claiming at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre as land value of the proposed acquisition in saying what was compensated in the award of Land Acquisition Officer was low to enhance to that extent. 20. 20. From the above, coming to the compensation enhanced by the Division Bench of this Court at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, now sought for review, is just and fair or outcome of any error apparent on the face of record concerned, the material on record speaks from the claim made before the Land Acquisition Officer by the respective claimants of the land value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre (page Nos. 12 and 13 of the award dated 25-8-1994). Same was also the claim before the Civil Court as can be seen from the Judgment/Award and Decree dated 20-1-2006 in said O.P. No. 85 of 1995. In fact even in the appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, it was urged as ground No. 6 that the learned Senior Civil Judge having observed emergency clause invoked for acquisition at the behest of A.P.I.I.C is not justified and as per claimants value of the land per care is more than Rs.1,50,000/- and compensation paid to the claimants was meagre, however, failed to do justice. It was only in the course of hearing the four Appeals by the Division Bench of this Court as can be seen from the Common Appeal Judgment observations, Sri P. Narasimhulu as party in person, made submissions in detail seeking further enhancement of market value to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre with reference to his additional chief-affidavit stray sentence to that affect and from documents placed reliance before the learned Senior Civil Judge's Court. His application in L.A.A.S.M.P. No. 502 of 2009 was allowed and considered by the Division Bench of this Court as can be seen from the Judgment, though not discussed the same in detail by referring as Exhibits, for same was not additional evidence documents but for four decisions referred therein. His application in L.A.A.S.M.P. No. 502 of 2009 was allowed and considered by the Division Bench of this Court as can be seen from the Judgment, though not discussed the same in detail by referring as Exhibits, for same was not additional evidence documents but for four decisions referred therein. It was therefrom observed by the Division Bench of this Court with reference to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and the decisions with reference thereto in arriving of market value from that to the land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification, since the entire extent of land acquired is for Industrial Development Area, it is more a commercial activity by the State in encouraging private entrepreneurs to say land suitable for constructions and industrial activity having found for that purpose in the proposal for acquisition, thereby it cannot be taken as one exclusively used or could have been used for agricultural purposes and the values thereby and consequently adopted uniform value to the acquired land meant for industrial use at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre as claimed before Land Acquisition Officer and Civil Court. 21. Before discussing the Appeal Judgment further, it is relevant to mention the evidence on record placed in the course of enquiry before the learned Senior Civil Judge that eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer as P.Ws. 1 to 8 and 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as R.Ws. 1 to 15 including the review petitioner - P. Narasimhulu as R.W. 12 and on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, Exs. 1 to A-22 and on behalf of the claimants Exs. B-1 to B-91 were marked besides Commissioner's Report, sketch and tabular statements and Exs. X-1 and X-2 are the report prepared by R.W. 14 and bio-data of R.W. 15. 22. 1 to A-22 and on behalf of the claimants Exs. B-1 to B-91 were marked besides Commissioner's Report, sketch and tabular statements and Exs. X-1 and X-2 are the report prepared by R.W. 14 and bio-data of R.W. 15. 22. The value of the land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification in February, 1994 is criteria and as per the Apex Court in Dollar Company v. Collector, Madras, AIR 1975 SC 1670 that placed reliance by Sri Narasimhulu particularly from page No. 1673 of what was observed is (a) market value as bona fide evidence of value of subject matter as such and as to relationship of the parties (b) market conditions and the terms of sale and (e) date of sale and it may not end the enquiry and the methods of valuation as on the date of Section 4(1) notification to market value depends upon opinion of experts and price paid within a reasonable time in a bona fide transaction of purchase of lands adjacent to the acquired lands and showing possessing similar advantages and actual or immediate prospective profits of the lands acquired. 23. In this regard, it is needless to repeat as the material on record shows the proposal for acquisition mooted in the year 1992 to the knowledge of the claimants and particularly Sri Narasimhulu. Among the Exs. B-1 to B-91 placed reliance by the claimants, even the Exs. B-1 and B-2 the two registered sale deeds executed in favour of the 1st claimant - D. Dwarakanadh Reddy by Claimant Nos. 8 to 10 respectively even dated 29-1-1994 (only few days before the Section 4(1) notification and that too for part of the land acquired), show the value of the land even taken with potentiality for industrial establishment, in and around of not more than Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. Coming to Exs. B-10 to B-12, registration extract of sale deeds of 222, 26 and 27-8-1992 and one sale agreement Ex. B-13 dated 30-10-1992, placed reliance by the review petitioner - P. Narasimhulu as R.W. 12, for the other sakes are of 1995 and 2001 not with any contemporary relevancy and two of the sales are even of 1965 not with any contemporary relevant and among Exs. A-1 to A-22, Ex. A-4 is the letter of the review petitioner, P. Narasimhulu, to A.P.I.I.C Hyderabad dated 10-3-1993 and Exs. A-1 to A-22, Ex. A-4 is the letter of the review petitioner, P. Narasimhulu, to A.P.I.I.C Hyderabad dated 10-3-1993 and Exs. A-5 to A-8 are contemporary relevancy sale transactions viz., one is of 1994 and two are of 1993 and one is of the year 1991. The Division Bench of this Court even re-appreciated the evidence also with reference to what the learned Senior Civil Judge from above material on record observed as per the details available in the award enquiry after publishing notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the persons whose lands proposed for acquisition appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation for the land acquired at Rs.1.50.000/- per acre by placed reliance upon Photostat copies of the some of the documents and what the award amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was taken on protest with their written requisition resulted the reference, in the counters filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 shying the land value was more than Rs.1,50,000/- per acre by the date of Section 4(1) notification and they placed reliance upon Exs. B-10 to 12 in claiming those sales were at above Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. Whereas the 11th respondent P. Narasimhulu (review petitioner herein) filed elaborate counter with photographs taken by him with high profile persons and stating his land is fertile equipped with water sources and with large number of trees and nearer to Madras - Bombay trunk road-cum-National Highway and claimed enhancement on the grounds of injuriously affecting from severance a portion of the land besides loss of income earnings and potentiality of the land that was acquired had it been not acquired. The claimants as respondent Nos. 1 to 10 claimed that 11th respondent (review petitioner) a retired major of Army is the person behind A.P.I.I.C for taking initiative for establishment of the Industrial Zone in the land for acquisition. At the instance of some of the claimants/respondents, Advocate Commissioner one K. Rangareddy was appointed who visited the land, prepared a sketch and report and tabular statement covered by Exs. C-1 to C-3 and came to witness box and deposed as R.W. 4. The 11th respondent Sri Narasimhulu besides him examined as. R.W. 12 cause examined one Dr. K. Satyanarayana Reddy, and another K. Pavan Kumar, technical experts as R.Ws. C-1 to C-3 and came to witness box and deposed as R.W. 4. The 11th respondent Sri Narasimhulu besides him examined as. R.W. 12 cause examined one Dr. K. Satyanarayana Reddy, and another K. Pavan Kumar, technical experts as R.Ws. 14 and 15 in the matter relating to water sources, trees etc., and loss at the estimate caused to the severed extent. As per their claim value of the land is more than Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and among Exs. B-10 to B-12 which relate to sale deeds obtained by Heritage Foods in the year 1992 and Ex. B-13 is only sale agreement on 1992 and Exs. B-14 to 16 are the sale deeds of 1994 and 1995. Also referred the judgment placed reliance of the Supreme Court in H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. MEGT, AIR 2004 SC 1800 saying after taken comparative sales of five by arriving average deducted 40% above for the largerness of the extent and it was also observed ?rd be deducted towards development cost and referred two more judgments of this High Court and discussed in para No. 16 of the award, that from the legal position the factors required to be taken into consideration in arriving market value as on the date of Section 4(1) notification with reference to alienations prior to notification and immediately after notification available if any to compare, so far as the lands sold for Heritage Foods under Exs. B-10 to B-12, the market value is around Rs.2,00,000/- per acre leave about another very small extent of Ac.0.12½ cents for school building purpose even prior to Section 4(1) notification not a criteria. On behalf of Land Acquisition Officer among Exs. A-1 to A-22 and with reference to P.Ws. 1 to 7 evidence, Ex. A-5 is a sale deed dated 10-3-1993, Ex. A-6 dated 11-10-1991, Ex. A-7 dated 11-1-1994 and Ex. On behalf of Land Acquisition Officer among Exs. A-1 to A-22 and with reference to P.Ws. 1 to 7 evidence, Ex. A-5 is a sale deed dated 10-3-1993, Ex. A-6 dated 11-10-1991, Ex. A-7 dated 11-1-1994 and Ex. A-8 dated 26-2-1993 when compared to the evidence of claimants what R.W. 1 first claimant says there are fruit yielding trees and other timber trees and the land is 7 kms from Madanapalle and adjacent to Madras - Bombay trunk road at about a distance of six furlongs to the acquired land covered by S. No. 485 and there is a cold storage factory and Vani Residential Junior College opposite to S.No. 485 besides - Sericulture Training Centre to its South and Clean Foods Limited to its North besides nearby residential schools of Navodaya and Madanapalle residential school and there are several buildings schools etc., and noted by Advocate - Commissioner in his report so far as Ex. B-1 registered sale deed dated 29-1-1994. it was executed in favour of first claimant by 10th claimant, another in favour of second claimant even those are showing the land value at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre just prior to Section 4(1) notification date these transactions are showing and nothing could be doubted on genuineness, for nothing could be described in this regard by the Land Acquisition Officer and with reference to R.W. 2 - 7th claimant, Ex. B-9 gift deed dated 31-10-1992 of Ac.0-12½ cents donated mentioned value of Rs.14.000/- for school building. Apart from it, Ex. B-10 (for Ac.0-92 cents dated 22-8-1992) in favour of Heritage Foods sold for Rs.1,97,800/- which comes to Rs.2,15,000/- per acre in S.No. 733 of Basinikonda revenue village and Ex. B-11 also dated 26-8-1992 for same value of same extent of same area with same rate and Ex. B-12 dated 27-8-1992 between same parties (for Ac.0-42 cents) of same value and area. Whereas, a subsequent sale agreement under Ex. B-13 dated 30-10-1992 of survey No. 497/131 proved through R.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 near these acquired lands for Ac.6-00 rate was shown Rs.1.00.000/- per acre and for that agreement a subsequent sale deed executed was under Ex. B-14 and it is also reflecting similar values from Ex. B-15 and B-16. leave about Ex. B-19 and the claimants in the appeals therefrom sought for fixing market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. B-14 and it is also reflecting similar values from Ex. B-15 and B-16. leave about Ex. B-19 and the claimants in the appeals therefrom sought for fixing market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The sale deed dated 29-1-1994 referred by 10th claimant/R.W. 3 value was Rs.1,25,000/- per acre that also referred by R.W. 4, 8th claimant and other claimants R.W. 5, 6 and 7. The Commissioner's report dated (sic)-12-2000 speaks school, college building, Heritage Company, Cold Storage, saw mill, Sericulture centre etc., are around to the lands acquired that also proved from the electrical connections possessed for those proved from evidence of electrical employee, R.W. 9 and the other witnesses including Horticulture experts who spoke about fruit growing trees and the value. The Division Bench of this Court, therefrom concluded in saving on an overall consideration of entire evidence produced on behalf of the claimants and from throwing light of various physical features of the land acquired and of those in the vicinity the market value of the land in and around is selling upto Rs.1,50,000/- per acre even by the date of Section 4(1) notification if any since before though the evidence on record including he letter of Sri P. Narasimhulu shows it is on his request for development of Industrial Growth Centre at Madanpalle for rehabilitation of ex-servicemen he was advised to approach Government of Andhra Pradesh and that later (sic, letter) leads to the acquisition. In fact, the lands as can be seen from the evidence of P.W. 2 Joint Collector or with no irrigation facility and are dry lands situated at a distance of 6 k.m away to Madanapalle, Chittoor main road and in the lands there are rocks, hillocks and boulders and unfit for cultivation that resulted in classifying into three categories of reach 1, 2 and 3 and even P.W. 3 document writer evidence shows in 1993 Ac. 0-87 cents were sold at Rs.10,000/- per acre and earlier Ac. 1-00 sold for Rs.30.000/-. It is with reference to it the contention of the Land Acquisition Officer of the value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on Section 18 reference claimed excessive to reduce also by showing no drains or water facility and land is with boulders, hillocks and rocks and stones. 1-00 sold for Rs.30.000/-. It is with reference to it the contention of the Land Acquisition Officer of the value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on Section 18 reference claimed excessive to reduce also by showing no drains or water facility and land is with boulders, hillocks and rocks and stones. By taking consideration of the land acquired is for industrial use and from nearby existence of some units referred supra fixed the market value on all counts at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre uniformity besides other statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act by allowing the three appeals of the claimants and dismissing the appeal of the Land Acquisition Officer. 24. In support of the review application, the review petitioner submitted written arguments saying Exs. B-10, B-11 and B-12 of the year 1992 show market value at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and Section 4(1) notification is subsequent thereto and the Advocate Commissioner in the Section 18 reference enquiry during its pendency inspected on 1-12-2000 and submitted report noting the land is covered by school, college, buildings, Heritage Company, cold storage, saw mill, Sericulture Training Centre etc., and the Horticulture officials as experts spoke about existence of fruit growing trees in the severed lands and the High Court felt to appreciate these aspects in arriving the market value with reference to said documents and evidence of R.Ws. 6 and 7 vendors of the documents and the Apex Court in Meharwal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, 2012 ALT (Rev.) 252 (SC) : 2012 (4) SCJ 853 : (2012) 5 SCC 432 observed transaction representing highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different Courts (sic. course) and it is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before Court in fixing fair compensation and in State of Madras v. A.M. Najam, AIR 1976 SC 651 held if the land involved in the awards is a comparable land in the reasonable proximity of acquired land the rates found in the documents to be reliable for determination of compensation. It is submitted that Exs. It is submitted that Exs. B-10, 11 and 12 are at a distance of 2.2 kms to the acquired land as per the Advocate Commissioner's report and as per Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Kart Gowda, 2011 ALT (Rev.) 126 (SC) : 2010 (4) SCJ 925 : AIR 2010 SC 2322 depending upon peculiar facts increase of 10 to 15% of fair market value can be made. The other contentions in the written arguments are regarding loss of earnings for the damage to the fruit bearing and medicinal trees in the severed land and how to calculate and for that reproduced Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 mainly clauses 3 and 4 and referred for that of the Apex Court in Ramesh Dutta v. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 388 saying reference Court has to determine amount payable for loss of earnings and expenses incurred for charge of place and business as part of fair compensation. Other written submissions in reference to cost of seven project reports submitted by District Collector, Chittoor and the claim thereunder referring to Ex. A-2 already answered as untenable. The claim of ne Land Acquisition Act, 2013 applies to him by referring to Section 24(2) of the Act by placed reliance upon three Judge Bench expression in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), was already answered supra. 25. As rightly contended referring to the written submissions on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer by the learned Advocate General through the Government Pleader for Appeals of Andhra Pradesh of present review won't tie either on fact or in law to invoke Order LXVII (sic. XLVII) Rule 1 C.P.C. for nothing demonstrated of what is the error apparent on the face of the record that requires to be corrected by taking up the review. The Apex Court has not given any finds on the merits of the claim. Even coming to Exs. B-10 to 12 place reliance, those documents were discussed even in the appeal judgment by the High Court and those are all very small extents and that too lying in another revenue village of Basimikonda, for a total of only Ac. 2-25 cents cultivable land in entirety, needless to say the subsequent sale transaction covered by sale agreement under Ex. B-13 dated 30-10-1992 belongs to same village of land acquired of survey No. 497/131 proved through R.Ws. 2-25 cents cultivable land in entirety, needless to say the subsequent sale transaction covered by sale agreement under Ex. B-13 dated 30-10-1992 belongs to same village of land acquired of survey No. 497/131 proved through R.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 as nearer to the acquired lands for an extent of Ac. 6-00 cents, rate was shown only at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and for that pursuant to the agreement, a subsequent sale deed was executed also under Ex. B-14; whereas the acquired land is a large extent of Ac. 87-53 cents of Valasapalli revenue village and even the distance in between the Ex. B-1 0-12 lands to the acquired land supra besides at different village is about 2-1/2 kms and nothing shown of nature of land similar in value and potentiality and it is by considering the same the Division Bench of this Court fixed the market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre uniformly, including by keeping in mind nature of land, purpose of acquisition and value of trees and consideration of scope of Section 23 of the Act, 1894. 26. Coming to the proposed acquisition having submitted to the acquisition, the review petitioner now cannot attack the acquisition. In this regard, the Apex Court in Smt. Somawanti and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151 (1) (5 JB) Five Judge Bench following the earlier expressions viz; Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1203 and State of Bombay v. Bhanjl Munji, AIR 1955 SC 41 and Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 521 per majority held that since the Land Acquisition Act provides that the declaration made by the State that a particular land is needed for a public purpose shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that it is so needed, the Constitution is not thereby infringed. The Act, being a pre-constitution Law, is protected from the operation of Article 31(2) by the provisions of Article 3(5)(a) and Article 19(1)(f) is not attracted to such a case. The Apex Court in the subsequent Five Judge Bench expression in R.I. Arora v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1230 (1) per majority held that all that the Act required is that the land should be required for a public purpose. The Apex Court in the subsequent Five Judge Bench expression in R.I. Arora v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1230 (1) per majority held that all that the Act required is that the land should be required for a public purpose. The intention of the previous owner, whatever it may be does not enter into the question at all, so far as the validity of the acquisition is concerned provided the acquisition is for a public purpose. Whether the land should be acquired or not is a matter which may be urged under Section 5-A of the Act, or otherwise, which gives the owner of the land the right to object to the acquisition, and it is for Government to declare whether the objection should be allowed or rejected. Once the Government decided that the objection should be rejected, and that the acquisition is needed for a public purpose the validity of the notification under Section 6 and the subsequent action thereafter cannot be challenged on the ground that the previous owner himself intended to use the land for some purpose. There being a definite public purpose behind the acquisition, the acquisition would be justified under the Act, irrespective of the intention of the previous owner of the land to use it for some other public purpose. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in a subsequent expression in Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 (1) ALT 13.2 (DN SC) : 2008 (3) SCJ 53 : (2008) 4 SCC 695 held object to acquisition deemed waived and not open to challenge after lapse of time to the land acquired covered by award, only from impugning of the quantum, but for to determine the same. 27. Even coming to the claim of clauses 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, there is nothing to show from the severed piece of land with the acquired land there is any severance and a subsequent damage for self in dealing the trees in the severed land cannot be a ground to invoke Section 23(1) clauses (3) or (4) of the Land Acquisition Act. 28. From the above, as referred supra, the proposal for acquisition was mooted in the year 1992 itself. The documents of contemporary relevancy of the years 1992 to 1994-95, for Section 4(1) notification was dated 10-2-1994, but for Exs. B-10 to B-12, including Ex. 28. From the above, as referred supra, the proposal for acquisition was mooted in the year 1992 itself. The documents of contemporary relevancy of the years 1992 to 1994-95, for Section 4(1) notification was dated 10-2-1994, but for Exs. B-10 to B-12, including Ex. B-13 of the year 1992 October, show the market value of the land covered by the acquisition and also around the village was only up to highest of Rs.1,25,000/- per acre and the 1994 documents placed reliance by 1st claimant are only of a value of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, so also from the Ex. B-13 sale transaction placed reliance by Sri Narasimhulu and the Exs. B-10 to B-12 transaction lands are agricultural and also those are of a different revenue village and with more potentiality and even those are at a distance of nearly three kilometres to the acquired land even as per the contention of Sri Narasimhulu with reference to Commission report, for same no way covered by any of the lands of the vicinity for acquisition, as discussed supra. The Apex Court in Valliammal v. Special Tahsildar, 2012 (2) ALT 10 .1 (DN SC) : 2011 (6) SCJ 928 : (2011) 8 SCC 91 categorically observed by scanning the land as on that date in entirety in consideration of the factors from comparative sales, that while fixing market value of acquired land, comparative sales method of valuation is preferred than any other methods of valuation such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion, because it furnishing the evidence for determination of market value of acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay if it had been sold in open market at the time of issue of Section 4(1) notification of the Act, however comparative sales of method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive as held in Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., 2001 (2) An.W.R 424 (SC) : (2001) 7 SCC 650 and it was observed further that if there is a dissimilarity in the locality, shape, size or nature of land between the land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation from 20% to 50% of the cost for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land. It was further observed that the normal rule in fixing compensation for large extent of land with reference to the value shown in the sale document of lesser extent is that there must be suitable deduction. It is common knowledge that larger extent of property invariably fetches less when compared to smaller extent. No prudent buyer would buy large extent by quoting the price prevailing in the market for a smaller piece of land. In Thakur Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India, 2011 ALT (Rev.) 99 (SC) : 2010 (4) SCJ 423 : ( 2010 3 SCC 794 it was held that sale price in respect of small piece of land cannot be the basis for determination of market value of large stretch of land by placed reliance on several earlier expressions in this regard. Even he Three Judge Bench expression later in Himmat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 6 SCC 392 it was held large number of sale instances when produced highest bona fide exemplar as to be relied upon and 50% deduction towards considering smallness of plot of exemplar sale deeds is permissible for the large extent acquired. 29. From the above propositions, once the lands covered by the vicinity that too placed reliance even by the claimants from Exs. 29. From the above propositions, once the lands covered by the vicinity that too placed reliance even by the claimants from Exs. B-1 and B-2 of the year 1994 few days before Section 4(1) notification show the value only to a maximum at Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, for not showing not more than Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre even during the years 1992 to 1994 including from the documents referred by the Land Acquisition Officer of the years 1992 to 1994, the Division bench conclusion by scanning the evidence in arriving of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, that too same is also the claim throughout, no way found any unjust conclusion muchless by any ill-appreciation or ignorance of available material, muchless outcome of any error apparent on the face of the record, for a review is not an appeal in disguise as per the settled propositions of law including from the Division Bench of this Court in M. Rama Bhushanam v. M/s. Commercial Agro Products Private Limited, 2016 (1) ALT 431 (DB), where it was held that discovery of new matter or evidence to receive and support is not a ground for review, that review jurisdiction is limited and not exercised for rehearing of appeal, that the Court has to consider whether there is any mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason to review the judgment and also by referring to several expressions of the Apex Court on its scope further held that review jurisdiction is limited and not exercised for rehearing of the case, nor to be exercised on pointing out any insignificant factual error in the order under review. Thus, there are no grounds in support of the petitioner to review the impugned judgment; the point No. I is accordingly answered against him. Point No. II 30. In the result, the petition (Rev. L A A S A M P No. 410 of 2015) is, dismissed. No costs.