JUDGMENT : NINALA JAYASURYA, J. 1. Heard Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader. Also heard Mr. P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant in L.A.A.S. No. 871 of 2011. 2. Against the common order dated 13.04.2011 in L.A.O.P. No. 58 of 2007 and batch on the file of the Court of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, the State preferred the present appeals. 3. For the purpose of excavation of Handri Neeva Sujala Sravanti (HNSS) Main Canal, in Bandi Thandrapadu Village., Land Acquisition notification dated 15.11.2006 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for an extent of Ac.32.96 cents and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23.11.2006. During the award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands into category-I (dry lands) and category-II (irrigation dry lands) and fixed the compensation at Rs.38,200/- and Rs.51,000/- per acre respectively. An Award dated 06.01.2007 in respect of an extent of Ac.5.25 cents and Ac.5.77 cents in Sy. Nos. 160/1A and 160/2A respectively, which are subject matter of appeals was passed. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, claiming compensation at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre. The learned Reference Court while formulating the point for consideration as to whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, enhanced the same from Rs.38,200/- per acre to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 4. The learned Government Pleader inter alia submits that the said fixation/enhancement is without any valid basis, highly excessive and not tenable. She submits that the Land Acquisition Officer had taken into account as many as 95 Sale Deeds and rightly fixed the compensation in respect of the lands which are dry at Rs.38,200/- per acre. She further contends that even as per the evidence adduced by the respondents-claimants i.e. Ex.B.2-Sale Deed dated 11.03.2008, the cost of the land in the subject matter village was Rs.40,000/- per acre. Further that the acquired lands are situate at a distance of 1½ Kms. from the land sold under Ex.B.2 and therefore, the learned Reference Court went wrong in fixing the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. She submits that at best, the compensation should have been at Rs.52,000/- per acre. Insofar as the other material on which reliance is placed by the respondents-claimants, she submits that the same would not in any way aid their case for enhancement of the compensation. She submits that at best, the compensation should have been at Rs.52,000/- per acre. Insofar as the other material on which reliance is placed by the respondents-claimants, she submits that the same would not in any way aid their case for enhancement of the compensation. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that even as per the oral evidence adduced on behalf of claimants, it is clear that the subject matter lands are far way from the Town and admittedly they are dry lands, thus under any stretch of imagination, the same would not fetch Rs.1,00,000/- per acre as fixed by the learned Reference Court. Making the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader seeks to allow the appeals. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in L.A.A.S. No. 871 of 2011 contends that even as per the evidence of Land Acquisition Officer, the distance between Tadakanipalli Village and subject matter land situate in Bandi Thadrapadu Village is about 1½ Kms. He submits that the lands which are situate in Bandi Thadrapadu Village were sold at the rate of Rs.3,35,000/- per acre in the year 2004 itself vide Ex.B.16 dated 13.09.2004 and an extent of Ac.0.60 cents was sold at Rs.2,62,000/- vide Ex.B.17 dated 10.02.2006. He submits that the learned Reference Court had taken the relevant material on record including the potentiality of the land etc. into consideration and had rightly enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, it is just and reasonable. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the appeals. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 7. Before the reference Court, the Referring Officer was examined as PW1 and Ex.A.1 to A.4 documents were marked. Whereas RW1 and RW2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.B.1 to B.17 were marked and on the basis of the same, it was contended that the acquired lands fetches Rs.15,00,000/- per acre. Ex.B.16 is registered Sale Deed dated 13.09.2004 wherein the land of an extent of Ac. 2.00 cents situate in Bandi Thadrapadu Village was sold for Rs.6,70,000/-. Ex.B.17 is registered Sale Deed dated 10.02.2006 wherein the land of an extent of Ac.0.60 cents situate in Bandi Thadrapadu Village was sold for Rs.2,62,000/-. Ex.B.16 is registered Sale Deed dated 13.09.2004 wherein the land of an extent of Ac. 2.00 cents situate in Bandi Thadrapadu Village was sold for Rs.6,70,000/-. Ex.B.17 is registered Sale Deed dated 10.02.2006 wherein the land of an extent of Ac.0.60 cents situate in Bandi Thadrapadu Village was sold for Rs.2,62,000/-. Instead of taking the best sale transactions which are much prior to the Section 4(1) Notification, the Land Acquisition Officer surprisingly took the Sale Deed dated 11.03.2008 into consideration wherein the land was sold @ Rs.40,000/- per acre, which is not tenable. Even as per the admission of the Land Acquisition Officer, the distance between lands in Bandi Thadrapadu Village and Thadakanapalli Village where the subject matter lands are situate is 1½ Kms. As noted earlier, Ex.B.16 registered Sale Deed is of the year 2004 in respect of the lands which were sold at more than Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. No reasons are forthcoming for discarding the said sale transaction. When the lands in the adjacent village were sold at more than Rs.3,00,000/- per acre, the Reference Court cannot be said to be unreasonable in fixing the compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in respect of the subject lands. 8. Further, as per evidence of RW1, Thadakanapalli Village is situate at a distance of about 10 Kms. from Kurnool city, which is rapidly developing and there are several institutions in the village. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer to the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer. In the cross examination, he deposed as follows: “The Pulla Reddy Engineering Collage is situated 3 K.Ms. away to the acquired land. It is situated on the right side of the road running from Kurnool to Nandyal at a distance of 3 K.Ms. and it is 3 to 4 K.Ms. from Jagannadhagattu to the acquired land. Near to the acquired land, the Government made a proposal to construct Group of Houses under the Scheme of “Rajiv Gruhakalpa.” On a question posed to the Referring Officer, she replied that Raga Mayuri Builders laid venture, which is at a distance of 4 K.Ms. the land in question not 2 K.Ms. as suggested. from Jagannadhagattu to the acquired land. Near to the acquired land, the Government made a proposal to construct Group of Houses under the Scheme of “Rajiv Gruhakalpa.” On a question posed to the Referring Officer, she replied that Raga Mayuri Builders laid venture, which is at a distance of 4 K.Ms. the land in question not 2 K.Ms. as suggested. The lands, which are situated on both right and left side of Kurnool to Nandyal road with equal roads.” Though, as per the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer, the acquired lands are dry and fit for raising dry corps, in view of their location as admitted by him, it can be safely concluded that the lands in question are having great potentiality and the said factor can be taken into consideration for determination of compensation. In Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (2) SCC 568 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia held as follows: “......(5) FOR ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration......” 9. Reverting back to the contention of the learned Government Pleader that as per the evidence i.e. Ex.B.2, the lands at the best may fetch at Rs.50,000/- per acre, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, more particularly, in the light of Exs.B.16 and B.17, which substantiate the case of the respondents-claimants. Infact, the compensation as enhanced by the Reference Court is very meagre. Be that as it may. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge and the appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 11. Infact, the compensation as enhanced by the Reference Court is very meagre. Be that as it may. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge and the appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 11. As a sequel, all pending applications if any shall stand closed.