JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Smt. A. Jayanathi, learned Government Pleader for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Upendra, learned counsel representing the respondents/Cross objectors. 2. Aggrieved by the Common Order dated 30.08.2008 in LAOP No. 384 of 2003 & batch on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the present appeals have been preferred. 3. For the purpose of excavation of major canal in 9th block of Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC), a Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for acquisition of land to an extent of Ac.20.32 cents in different survey numbers of Banaganapalle Village was issued on 17.04.1998. The Draft Declaration was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 30.04.1998. In the enquiry conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/claimants participated. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands under acquisition into two categories i.e., Category 1 – Dry lands fed with rain water and Category 2 - Dry lands having irrigation potentialities and fixed the compensation @ Rs.30,000/- and Rs.43,000/- respectively. The respondents/ claimants dissatisfied with the said fixation, filed applications under Section 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement. 4. Before the Reference Court, the claimant in O.P. No. 384 of 2003 got himself examined as RW-1 apart from the Mandal Surveyor of Banaganapalle and the Advocate Commissioner as RWs. 2 and 3 respectively. RWs. 4 and 5 were also examined on behalf of the claimants/respondents and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked apart from Exs.X1, X2, C1 to C3. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the Referring Officer, Ex.A1-Sketch Plan and Ex.A2-Copy of the Award No. 12 of 1999 dated 18.08.1999 were marked with consent. 5. Learned Reference Court while formulating a point as to Whether the Award passed under Ex.A2 reflects the true market value of the acquired land, considered the material on record and enhanced compensation to Rs.2,97,500/- per acre. While, it is contention of the learned Government Pleader that the said fixation is highly excessive, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants/cross objectors argues that the acquired lands are more valuable and the claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. 6. While, it is contention of the learned Government Pleader that the said fixation is highly excessive, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants/cross objectors argues that the acquired lands are more valuable and the claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. 6. In elaboration, the learned Government Pleader contends that the Land Acquisition Officer, after duly considering as many as 38 sale transactions, had fixed the compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per acre for the dry lands and Rs.43,000/- for irrigated dry lands, which is just and reasonable. She contends that the learned Reference Court, without appreciating the matter in a proper prospective and overlooking the crucial aspect that the respondents claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre before the Land Acquisition Officer, grossly erred in enhancing the compensation in respect of both the categories of lands to Rs.2,97,500/-. She contends that the reliance placed by the Reference Court on Ex.A2 i.e. Award No. 12 of 1999 dated 18.08.1999 is wholly misconceived and the lands under the said Award are far away from the subject matter lands and do not reflect the correct value. She submits that the subject matter lands are agricultural lands situated in an interior place and the same cannot be compared with the other lands, which were converted into house sites. Referring to the evidence, the learned Government Pleader submits that even as per the witnesses i.e., RW-1, RW-2 and RW-3, who were examined on behalf of the claimants, the subject matter lands are agricultural lands, whereas the Exs.B2 and B4 are pertaining to house sites. Contending that the enhancement of compensation uniformly in respect of both categories of lands is highly excessive, that the Order under challenge is liable to be interfered with and that the respondents/claimants are not entitled for any further compensation, she prays for allowing the Appeals and dismissal of the Cross Objections. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that as the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was on a lower side, the respondents claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre before the Reference Court. He submits that despite ample evidence on record, the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation only to Rs.2,97,500/- instead of enhancing the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- and to the extent, the order of the Reference Court is adverse to the respondents/claimants, they filed the Cross Objections. He submits that despite ample evidence on record, the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation only to Rs.2,97,500/- instead of enhancing the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- and to the extent, the order of the Reference Court is adverse to the respondents/claimants, they filed the Cross Objections. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the Appeals filed by the State and allow the Cross Objections. 8. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration by this Court is whether the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court is excessive, warrants interference or the claimants are entitled for further enhancement? 9. Insofar as the contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader with regard to enhancement of compensation uniformly in respect of both the categories of lands, it may be pertinent to mention that the learned Reference Court had taken into consideration Ex.A1-Field Sketch and arrived at a conclusion that the lands of the respondents/claimants in Survey Nos. 13 & 16 lie towards the East of Banaganapalle Town, whereas lands in Sy. Nos. 31 & 24 lie towards North of Banaganapalle and the lands in Survey Nos. 13 & 16 are more or less equidistant from Banaganapalle Town Proper. The learned Reference Court further taken note of the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents/claimants that the distance between the Banaganapalle Town and the acquired land is less than 1 kilo meter or at best 1 ½ kilo meters, but not 5 kilo meters as suggested in the cross examination, that the acquired land is situated near the boundary line of Banaganapalle and Mettupalli and relied on Exs.B4 and B5 for enhancing the compensation. In respect of acquisition of lands situated in Banaganapalle Revenue Village vide Award No. 25/91-92 dated 31.03.1992, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre in respect of the dry lands and Rs.25,000/- per acre in respect of dry lands with irrigation facility. On reference, vide Orders dated 15.04.2004 in O.P. No. 134 of 1993 (Ex.B4), the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,53,800/- and Rs.1,58,800/- per acre for dry lands and dry lands having irrigation facility respectively. On reference, vide Orders dated 15.04.2004 in O.P. No. 134 of 1993 (Ex.B4), the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,53,800/- and Rs.1,58,800/- per acre for dry lands and dry lands having irrigation facility respectively. It would further appear that on Appeal, vide Orders 15.06.2007 in A.S. No. 3370 of 2004 (Ex.B5), the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh enhanced the compensation regardless of categories of lands to Rs.2,50,000/- treating the enhancement of compensation in respect of the lands in Banaganapalle Village as the benchmark to fix the market value of the lands in the vicinity. Taking into account that the subject matter lands have been surrounded by agricultural lands, whereas the lands which are subject matter of the Ex.B4 are dry lands, the learned Reference Court, felt it appropriate to scale on the value of land in question by reducing 30% from the benchmark value of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and worked it out to Rs.1,75,000/- per acre. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that the said fixation is without any valid basis, cannot be accepted. No doubt, it appears that the claimants sought for compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- before the Land Acquisition Officer, but if they are entitled to more compensation, with reference to the material available on record, this Court see no reason to deny the same. 10. In Narendra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 426 it was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Courts are not precluded from awarding a higher compensation than claimed amount. Reference was also made to the decision in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544 wherein it was held that it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the landowner and there is no cap on the maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the Court and the Courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount that has been claimed by the landowners/applicants in their application before it. 11. 11. Further, the learned Reference Court added value appreciation of 10% per acre taking into consideration the time gap of 7 years four months between the acquisition of lands situated in Banaganapalle Village under Award No. 25/91-92 dated 31.03.1992 and the subject matter lands vide Award dated 18.08.1999, the same cannot be found fault with, more particularly in view of the location of the acquired land from Banaganapalle Town. 12. The learned Reference Court assigned cogent reasons and the enhancement of compensation is in tune with decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash (Dead) by LRs. and Others v. Union of India and Another, (2004) 10 SCC 627 . 13. Though the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants sought to impress upon that they are entitled for more compensation, having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the opinion that the enhancement of compensation to Rs.2,97,500/- per acre is just, reasonable and warrants no further enhancement. 14. For the conclusions arrived at supra, the Order under challenge contains valid reasons and does not call for interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the Appeals as well as the Cross Objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.