JUDGMENT: (Ninala Jayasurya, J.) : Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 06.8.2010 of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in Original Petition Nos.424, 425 and 426 of 2009 enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,600/- to Rs.34,600/- per acre, the present appeals have been preferred. 2. For excavation of 8R Sub-Minor of Singavaram Major Distributory Canal from KM 0.000 to 1.270 KM in Block No.6 of Telugu Ganga Project, a Gazette Notification dated 12.1.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for acquisition of total extent of Acs.4.01 cents situated in various survey numbers of Ramapuram Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal. The Draft Notification was published on 15.6.1996 and after issuing Draft Declaration, Award enquiry was conducted on 07.12.2001 and 26.12.2001. Subsequently, Award No.6 of 2001 dated 31.12.2001 was passed. For the purpose of awarding compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer had classified the subject matter lands as rainfed dry lands and fixed the market value at Rs.12,600/- per acre, while allowing the other benefits of solatium, additional market value etc. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants received the compensation under protest and sought for enhancement of the compensation of the market value at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, by referring the matter to the Civil Court. 3. Before the Reference Court, the claimants examined R.Ws.1 to 4 on their behalf and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5. The Referring Officer had not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. Ex.A.1, copy of the Award No.6 of 2001 dated 31.12.2001 was marked with consent. 4. While deciding the question as to whether the Award No.6/2001 dated 31.12.2001 does not adequately compensate the claimants for the loss of their lands, the learned Reference Court, after considering the material on record, enhanced the market value. Aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation of the lands from Rs.12,600/- to Rs.34,600/- per acre, State filed these appeals. 5. Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader, assailing the said enhancement, inter alia contends that the learned Reference Court without any valid basis enhanced the compensation and the same is not sustainable. It is his contention that the differential amount of Rs.2,100/-, which is added to the value of the land at Rs.18,000/- per acre, is without any valid basis and no cogent reasons were assigned for adding the said amount of Rs.2,100/-. It is his contention that the differential amount of Rs.2,100/-, which is added to the value of the land at Rs.18,000/- per acre, is without any valid basis and no cogent reasons were assigned for adding the said amount of Rs.2,100/-. He also contends that the value appreciation of the subject lands at the rate of 12% per annum, as adopted by the learned Reference Court, is not tenable and no reasons much less cogent reasons were assigned for fixing the same. Placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the erstwhile common High Court in L.A.A.S.No.1 of 2010 and batch, dated 21.11.2013, he contends that at the most, escalation of prices may be taken at 10% and the value appreciation should have been fixed at 10% per annum. In any event, the learned Government Pleader submits that the enhancement, as made by the learned Reference Court, is on higher side and the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Making the said submissions, he seeks to allow the appeals. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and perused the material on record. It is pertinent to note that large extents of lands were acquired for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project canal in the year 1990 and in respect of the lands in Chinnadevalapuram Village, as per the evidence adduced by the claimants, the market value was fixed at Rs.10,000/- per acre and on reference, the same was enhanced to Rs.18,000/- per acre. The subject lands are adjacent to Chinnadevalapuram Village and they are similar in nature with regard to its potentiality and market value. 7. Be that as it may. The learned Reference Court referring to Exs.B.2 and B.4 i.e., common order in O.P.Nos.1 to 19 of 2009 and Appeal No.1068 of 2004 in respect of the lands situate in various Villages along with alignment of Telugu Ganga Project Canal, wherein it was opined that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded insufficient compensation and enhanced the same, appreciated the matter as to whether the present claimants are entitled for enhancement on similar lines. However, the learned Reference Court took into consideration Ex.B.5 i.e., common order in O.P.No.5 of 1994 and batch, dated 30.10.2004 in respect of Award No.30/1991–92 dated 25.3.1991, wherein the compensation fixed at Rs.10,600/- per Acre in respect of rain-fed dry lands of Peddadevalapuram Village were enhanced to Rs.18,000/- per acre. The learned Reference Court had also considered the aspect that all these Villages are adjacent to each other, which are along with alignment of Telugu Ganga Project Canal and all these Villages are comparatively proximate to each other. 8. Assigning the said reasons, the learned Reference Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.34,600/- from Rs.12,600/-. Though the learned Government Pleader had sought to impress upon this Court that the amount as enhanced by the learned Reference Court is without any valid basis and no reasons with regard to the differential amount of Rs.2,100/- are assigned, we are not inclined to appreciate these contentions, as the learned Reference Court had taken note that the lands acquired from the respondents/claimants are irrigated dry lands whereas the lands, which are the subject matter of Ex.B.5 are rain-fed dry lands for which the compensation was enhanced from Rs.10,600/- to Rs.18,000/- per acre. Therefore, this Court feels that adding differential amount of Rs.2,100/- in respect of irrigated dry lands is not unreasonable. 9. In so far as the other contention with reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench referred to above, it would appear that in the said cases, no documentary evidence was available and therefore, the Division Bench held that value appreciation cannot be adopted. The said decision is of no much aid to the appellant herein as, in the present case the claimants adduced the oral and documentary evidence, which goes to show that the subject matter lands are irrigated dry lands and the appreciation of market value at 12% per annum, on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash (D) by L.Rs v. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627 , as arrived at by the learned Reference Court is legally valid. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the firm opinion that the enhancement of compensation by the learned Reference Court is just and reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the firm opinion that the enhancement of compensation by the learned Reference Court is just and reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.