JUDGMENT : Ninala Jayasurya, J. Aggrieved by the Common Order dated 18.11.2011 passed in LAOP Nos. 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284 and 285 of 2009 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the present appeals are preferred. 2. Heard Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Pursuant to the Notification dated 24.03.2007 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), land of an extent of Ac.8.12 cents situated in various survey numbers of Udumalpuram Village of Nandyal Mandal belonging to the respondents was acquired for the purpose of laying Nandyal-Dhone Railway Line Diversion near River Kundu. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting Award Enquiry, fixed the market value @ Rs.2,63,000/- per acre. 4. Dissatisfied with the said fixation, the respondents received the compensation under protest, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and requested to fix the compensation @ Rs.1,00,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. 5. Before the Reference Court, the respondents / claimants examined R.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4. The Referring Officer was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. The Advocate Commissioner’s Report and Plan were marked as Ex.C1. 6. The learned Reference Court, while formulating the point as to whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Ex.A1 i.e., Award No.4/2008 dated 04.03.2008 in respect of the subject matter lands is just and reasonable or needs any enhancement, if so, what is the proper estimate of the market value of the acquired lands, fixed the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.15,00,000/- per acre. 7. Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader, assailing the said fixation contended that the same is highly excessive, abnormal and without any valid basis. In elaboration, she submits that the Land Acquisition Officer had examined as many as 85 sale transactions that took place in Udumalpuram Village during the three years period prior to the Notification dated 24.03.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and fixed the market value @ Rs.2,63,000/- per acre by taking into account the sale transactions in respect of lands, which are nearer to the subject matter lands. She submits that the said fixation is just and valid, but the Reference Court went wrong in enhancing the same to Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, though no cogent material is filed by the respondents / claimants to substantiate their claim for enhancement, much less @ Rs.1,00,00,000/- per acre, yet, the compensation was fixed @ Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, which is wholly unsustainable. She submits that the learned Reference Court misread the evidence adduced by the Referring Officer and grossly erred in discarding Exs.A2 to A7. 8. The learned Government Pleader strenuously submits that the subject matter lands are situated in a village, far away from the municipal limits of Nandyal Town, however, the learned Reference Court went wrong in opining that the same are situated very nearer to the Nandyal Municipality and that there is every possibility of future developments. The learned counsel further submits that assuming, without admitting, the sale transactions vide Exs.B1 and B2 are in respect of very small extents of lands and the same cannot be taken into consideration as large extents of lands were acquired for the purpose of laying a railway line. Further that the learned Reference Court, grossly erred in not deducting development charges, though observed that the acquired lands are having house site potentiality, that in fact, the acquired lands are not useful for construction of residential houses, as the lands are situated in low lying area, prone for inundation with flood water of river Kundu. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Appeals. 9. On the other hand, Mr.K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents / claimants made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. Referring to the material on record, he inter alia contends that the lands under acquisition are within the municipal limits of Nandyal Town, adjacent to Rajiv Gruha Kalpa and Bommala Satram along the National High Way No.18. Referring to the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents / claimants, he further contends that the respondents / claimants had categorically established their case that the lands in question and the lands which are subject matter of Exs.B1 and B2 are adjacent to each other and similar in nature, potentiality and market value. Referring to the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents / claimants, he further contends that the respondents / claimants had categorically established their case that the lands in question and the lands which are subject matter of Exs.B1 and B2 are adjacent to each other and similar in nature, potentiality and market value. He submits that Bommala Satram is a well developed area, abutting the National High Way No.18, Auto Nagar, Nandi Dairy, R.T.O.Office, Shantiram Medical College and S.P.Y.Reddy Women’s Degree College etc; that even as per the admission of the Land Acquisition Officer (P.W.1) in the cross examination, the distance between the acquired land and the Bommala Satram is about ½ kilo meter. He submits that even the Advocate Commissioner (R.W.4) had categorically testified that approximately 300 houses under Rajiv Gruhakalpa Scheme, Nandi Dairy etc., are abutting the lands under acquisition and the Advocate Commissioner’s Report and Plan (Ex.C1) reflects the same. He submits that the subject matter lands fetches more market value than fixed by the Reference Court @ Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, but the respondents / claimants owing to financial difficulties had not preferred any appeals / cross objections. He also submits that the contention with regard to deduction of the developmental charges, merits no appreciation as the area in question where the subject matter lands are situated is already well developed area. He also denied the contention that the subject matter lands are prone for inundation with flood water of river Kundu. 10. The learned counsel further contends that taking sale exemplars vide Exs.B1 and B2 and applying 50% deductions for determination of the market value, the same would fetch more than Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, so the contention that the rate fixed is highly excessive holds no water. 11. Referring to Ex.B3 i.e., Letter dated 15.02.2007 addressed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction, South-Central Railway, Guntakal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntakal, the learned counsel further contends that the payment of advance amount of Rs.1,56,23,800/- for acquisition of the subject matter lands for railway line would clearly indicate that the same are very valuable, more particularly in view of their location. He submits that the order of the Reference Court contains cogent reasons, warrants no interference and the Appeals are therefore liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the following citations: 12. He submits that the order of the Reference Court contains cogent reasons, warrants no interference and the Appeals are therefore liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the following citations: 12. Union of India & Others v. A.Ajit Singh , [AIR 1997 SCC 2669] is a case, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Delhi High Court to the extent of determination of market value on the basis that the acquired lands are situated in the developed area and are very near to the developed localities belonging to the private parties and Government and therefore possesses the potential value for use for building purposes. 13. The Land Acquisition Officer, Sub Collector, Vijayawada v. Sheik Bahileem & Others , [AIR 1996 A.P.,14] is a case, wherein a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Administrator General v. Collector, Varanasi ( AIR 1988 SC 943 )rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant / Land Acquisition Officer that sale transaction in respect of a small extent of land cannot be taken into consideration at all. It held that where there is no sale deed for a large area of land, the sale deeds for small extents of lands also can be taken into consideration, however sufficient deductions have to be made for all the amenities to be provided to the acquired land, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 14. In P.Ram Reddy etc., v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad etc., , [1995 AIR SCW 871] the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with an appeal filed against the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh opined inter alia that while determining the market value, building potentiality of the acquired lands should be taken into consideration. It also held that “whether the acquired land has building potentiality or not, while has to be decided upon reference to the material to be placed on record or made available by the parties concerned, the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality, is also required to be determined with reference to the material to be placed on record or made available in that regard by the parties concerned and not solely on surmises, conjectures or pure guess.” 15. Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi , [AIR 1988 SCC 943] is a case, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining an appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad opined that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties and in Para No.6 held as follows: “6……..The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid-out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civic amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying-out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realization of the price; the profits on the venture etc., are to be made.” 16. Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam , [AIR 1939 Privy Council 98] is a case, wherein the Privy Council held that land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use at the time at which its value has to be determined but also by reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future and that it is the possibilities of the land and not its realized possibilities that must be taken into consideration. The Hon’ble Court allowed the appeal in part, opining that the land acquired should be valued on the basis of its adaptability for building purposes. 17. In Horrmal (deceased) through his LRs and others v. State of Haryana & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the appeals filed by the land owners whose appeals before the High Court for enhancement of the compensation were dismissed and cross appeals filed by the State were allowed. 17. In Horrmal (deceased) through his LRs and others v. State of Haryana & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the appeals filed by the land owners whose appeals before the High Court for enhancement of the compensation were dismissed and cross appeals filed by the State were allowed. Referring to a catena of cases, the Hon’ble Court reiterated that there is no bar in Law against considering the sale exemplars of smaller plots, provided they are subjected to adequate developmental charges. Further observing that there are multiple sale deeds of smaller plots and they represent the best available evidence for estimating compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court took into consideration the highest sale exemplar, rather than solely depending upon an average of the multiple sale deeds. It allowed the appeals by applying the deductions at 50% while noting that as per the judicial precedents, the amount of deduction to be applied towards developmental charges can range from anywhere between 20% to 75%. 18. On an appreciation of the rival contentions with reference to the oral and documentary evidence on record, the point that arises for consideration by this Court is “Whether the compensation fixed by the Reference Court is without any basis, excessive and as such, warrants interference by this Court?” 19. As noted earlier, the claimants / respondents as well as the Referring Officer adduced evidence in support of their case. Contending vehemently that the fixation of Market Value at the rate of Rs.15,00,000/- per acre is not tenable, the learned Government Pleader sought to impress upon this Court that the learned Reference Court grossly erred in not taking into consideration the Awards passed in respect of the earlier acquisitions and the orders passed thereon by the Reference Court. It is her contention that in the light of the said material on record (EX.A2 to A7) fixation of Market Value at the rate of Rs.15,00,000/- is not sustainable. Ex.A2 Award dated 30.03.2001 and Exs.A3 and A4 common orders dated 12.02.2009 and 01.06.2009 in O.P.No.21 of 2005 and O.P.No.214 of 2005 respectively passed by the Reference Court pertains to the lands acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification of the Act dated 20.08.1991. Whereas, the lands in question were acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification dated 24.03.2007 i.e., more than 16 years after the acquisition of the lands in 1991. Whereas, the lands in question were acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification dated 24.03.2007 i.e., more than 16 years after the acquisition of the lands in 1991. Ex.A5 is the Award dated 29.03.1999 in respect of the lands acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification dated 31.12.1998. The other documents i.e., Ex.A6 and A7 i.e., Copy of the Award No.3/2008 dated 02.02.2008 and the Common Order in O.P.No.260 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandyal, dated 22.02.2011 pertains to the lands situate in Moolasagaram and Udumalpuram villages, acquired pursuant to the Section 4 (1) Notification of the Act dated 06.03.2007 for the purpose of formation of diversion road and construction of high level bridge across Kundu River. In so far as the common order in O.P.No.260 of 2009, the claimants therein aggrieved by the fixation of market rate @ Rs.3,90,000/- filed L.A.A.S.No.681 of 2011 & batch and this Court by a detailed order dated 03.10.2024 allowed the same partly and enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,09,000/- per acre. Be that as it may. In so far the said documents i.e., Ex.A2 to A7, the learned Reference Court in the order under appeal, opined that the lands covered under Ex.A.2 to A7 are agricultural lands, not having house site potentiality and they are of no support to the PW 1 / Referring Officer. 20. Placing strong reliance on Ex.A7, the learned Government Pleader contended that Reference Court grossly erred in not taking the Market rate fixed by the Reference Court in respect of the lands situate in the same village and for the same purpose. She submits that the rate fixed at the rate of Rs.3,90,000/- atleast should have been treated as reasonable price, but the Reference Court fixed abnormal market value @ Rs.15,00,000/- per acre. She submits that the compensation amount advanced by the Railways towards acquisition of lands vide Ex.B3 reflects not only market rate but also interest component for the entire extent of the lands and the same cannot be taken as basis / indicator for the value of the land. 21. While there is no dispute with regard to compensation as fixed under Ex.A7 @ Rs.3,90,000/-, it may be pertinent to state that the evidence adduced by the parties herein is relevant to consider the rival contentions. 22. 21. While there is no dispute with regard to compensation as fixed under Ex.A7 @ Rs.3,90,000/-, it may be pertinent to state that the evidence adduced by the parties herein is relevant to consider the rival contentions. 22. To substantiate their claim for enhancement, claimant in OP No.277 of 2009 got himself examined as RW 1. RW 2 is the vendee of the Registered Sale Deed Ex.B2, dated 18.08.2005 and RW 3 is one of the vendees of Registered Sale Deed Ex.B1 dated 18.08.1997 and RW 4 is the Advocate Commissioner. RW 1 in his evidence categorically asserted that the subject matter lands are situated in Nandyal Township area, adjacent to Rajiv Gruhakalpa, Bommala Satram along the National Highway-18 and that Auto Nagar, Nandi Dairy, RTO Officer Shanthiram Medical College and SPY Reddy Women’s Degree College are established near the acquired lands. He testified that the location of the acquired lands is fast developing in which residential houses are built and the entire acquired land is useful for residential purpose. 23. R.W.2, who purchased an extent of Ac.0.06 cents and 788 links in Survey No.517/2A of Moolasagaram vide Ex.B2 dated 18.08.2005 supported the case of the claimants and testified that Ex.B2 land is in the Municipal limits of Nandyal Town and the lands under acquisition are adjacent to Ex.B2 land, that they are similar in nature, potentiality and market value. He also stated that Ex.B2 land and acquired lands are having house site potentiality and are abutting ‘Rajiv Gruha Kalpa’, Auto Nagar, Industrial Estate and Venkateswarapuram colony, which are under the Municipal limits of Nandyal. In the cross examination, he however deposed that the land purchased by him is a non-layout plot within the Municipal limits of Nandyal, that the acquired lands pertains to Udumalpuram Village, and denied the suggestion that the acquired lands are also within the municipal limits. He also denied the suggestion that the distance between Ex.B2 land and the acquired lands is about 2 kms., and stated that it is about 2 furlongs. 24. He also denied the suggestion that the distance between Ex.B2 land and the acquired lands is about 2 kms., and stated that it is about 2 furlongs. 24. R.W.3, who purchased an extent of Ac.0.04 ½ cents in Survey No.439/1 of Bommalasatram area vide Ex.B1 dated 18.08.1997, supported the case of the claimants that the land purchased by him under Ex.B1 and the acquired lands are adjacent, similar in nature and having house site potentiality and that they are abutting ‘Rajiv Gruha Kalpa’, Auto Nagar, Industrial Estate and Venkateswarapuram colony, which are under municipal limits of Nandyal. In the cross examination, he stated that Ex.B1 land is situated in the busiest locality, the acquired lands are situated in UdumalpuramVillage limits and that there are no residential houses or commercial shops near the acquired lands. He admitted that ‘Kundu’ river is at a distance of 2 furlongs and denied the suggestion that the acquired lands are subjected to inundation due to Kundu floods. He denied the suggestion that the acquired lands cannot be compared with his lands covered by Ex.B1. 25. R.W.4, the Advocate Commissioner in his cross examination stated that Ex.B1 land is situated in a busy locality and admitted that the lands acquired under Award No.6 of 2005 for the formation of new B.G.Railway line is to the south of the existing railway line and the acquired lands are to the north of the existing railway line. He denied the suggestion that both the lands i.e., the lands acquired for B.G.Railway line and the acquired lands are similar in all respects. He, however stated that “acquired lands for new B.G.Railway line are purely agricultural lands. The lands acquired for railway track or (Sic. are) not agricultural lands. There are no structures along with the acquired land. There are no pucca roads to reach the acquired lands from N.H.18.” He also deposed that Survey No.425 is by the side of River Kundu, not adjacent to the river. 26. Whereas, P.W.1 in his evidence, testified that the acquired lands are adjacent to River Kundu are not useful for construction of residential houses as they are lying in low area and are subjected to inundation with flood waters of Kundu River during rainy season. 26. Whereas, P.W.1 in his evidence, testified that the acquired lands are adjacent to River Kundu are not useful for construction of residential houses as they are lying in low area and are subjected to inundation with flood waters of Kundu River during rainy season. While testifying about acquisition of an extent of Ac.10.78 cents in various survey numbers within the village limits of Udumalpuram for formation of ayakattu road, passing of an award with reference to the said acquisition and the orders passed by the Reference Court, he got marked Exs.A2 to A4. Insofar as land of an extent of Ac.9.73 cents, which is acquired for formation of diversion road and high level bridge across Kundu River, he got marked the Award No.3 of 2008, fixing the market value of Rs.2,63,000/- per acre and the Common Order dated 22.02.2011 in O.P.No.260 of 2009 fixing the market value @ Rs.3,90,000/- per acre on reference as Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 respectively. In his cross examination, he admitted that in the Ex.A1-Award, there is no mention whether the acquired lands are under cultivation or not. He denied the suggestion that ‘Rajiv Gruha Kalpa’ houses are nearer to the acquired lands and side by side. However, he admitted that there are about 500 flats for allotment to the poor people in Nandyal Municipality and that there is Auto Nagar opposite to Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Housing Board. He denied the suggestion that the acquired lands are near to Bommalasatram of Nandyal, but admitted that the distance between the acquired lands and Bommalasatram is about ½ K.M. He also admitted that the acquired lands are parallel to the National High Way road, but denied the suggestion that the entire land is potential for housing and commercial purpose. He admitted that the Railway Department had deposited Rs.1,56,23,800/- for acquiring the land for Railway line for an extent of Ac. 24.31 cents. In re-examination, he clarified that excess amount from the Railway Department was sought for safer side to meet all expenses and future interest. 27. On an appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, it would appear that the acquired lands are situated in an area adjacent to the area having potentiality for development, but prone for inundation. 24.31 cents. In re-examination, he clarified that excess amount from the Railway Department was sought for safer side to meet all expenses and future interest. 27. On an appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, it would appear that the acquired lands are situated in an area adjacent to the area having potentiality for development, but prone for inundation. Even, R.W.1 in his cross examination while denying the suggestion that the lands are 5-6 feet lower than the road level, stated that “it is true that our lands are subjected to inundation by Kundu River water in rainy season.” He categorically deposed that there are houses in and around the acquired lands, but admitted that Ex.B1 is not approved layout plot. Thus, the evidence on record would go to show that the lands under acquisition are situated in the area which has potentiality for development, by virtue of their location i.e., adjacent to ‘Rajiv Gruha Kalpa’, Auto Nagar, Industrial Estate and Venkateswarapuram colony, though subjected to inundation during rainy season. 28. Insofar as the documentary evidence Exs.B1 to B4 is concerned, the learned Reference Court while not discarding them out and out, opined that the same can be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the market value of the lands acquired under Ex.A1-Award. The relevant observations of the Reference Court reads as follows: “31. As can be seen from the recitals of Exs.B1 and B2, it is revealed that an extent of Ac.0.04 ½ cents in Sy.No.539/1 for a consideration of Rs.1,09,000/- which works out to Rs.24,200/- per cent of Bommalasatram area and an extent of Ac.0.06 cents 788 links in Sy.No.517/2A for a consideration of Rs.4,23,000/- which works out to Rs.62,300/- per cent of Moolasagaram village of Nandyal Municipality respectively and the lands covered under Exs.B1 and B2 are situated in a different village from that of the present acquired lands. Therefore, the sale transaction under Exs.B1 and B2 cannot be the sole basis to fix the market value of the acquired lands and at the same time Exs.B1 and B2 cannot be totally ignored and the same can be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the market value of the lands acquired under Ex.A1 Award, because the oral evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 reveals that the lands acquired under Ex.A1-Award of Udumalpurammalpuram and the lands covered under Exs.B1 and B2 are similar in nature in all aspects and having house site potentiality.” 29. Observing so, the learned Reference Court recorded its conclusion that the acquired lands are situated nearer to Nandyal Municipality and opined that it is safe to rely on Exs.B3 and B4 to determine the correct market value of the acquired lands. 30. Ex.B1 is a sale transaction dated 18.08.1997 which took place about 10 years prior to the issuance of the Draft Notification dated 24.03.2007 for acquisition of lands in question and it is in respect of a small extent of land situated in the same village i.e., Udumalpuram. It is settled law that for determining the market value, the contemporaneous sale transactions are required to be taken into consideration. 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, ONGC Ltd., v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Another , [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ] inter alia held that “Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied on sale transactions / acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger.” In the present case, the L.A.O., took into account sale transaction dated 17.11.2005 of the same village i.e., Udumalpuram wherein a large extent of land of Ac.5.34 cents was sold for Rs.14,00,000/- which comes to Rs.2,62,172/- per acre. In the light of the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Ex.B1 sale transaction cannot be relied upon. 32. It is also equally settled that the price fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts and the prices fetched for small developed plots not be directly adopted in valuing large extents, except however, after making necessary deductions for development expenses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs & Others v. State of Haryana & Others, dated 21.10.2024 reiterated the legal position with regard to deductions while holding that sale exemplars of small plots can be considered. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while taking the highest sale exemplar instead of depending upon an average of the multiple sale deeds determined the compensation by applying 50% cuts towards development charges. But in the present case, there are no multiple sale deeds. 33. Ex.B2 is the sale transaction dated 18.08.2005 in respect of a small extent of land which is situated in Moolasagaram village. Though the oral evidence adduced would go to support the case of the respondents / claimants that Udumalpuram village and Moolasagaram are adjacent and are having potentiality for development, the said transaction, is two years prior to the issuance of the Section 4 (1) Notification dated 24.03.2007 in respect of the lands in question. From a reading of the said document, it would appear that the transaction was entered into for discharge of the loan obtained by the vendors therein. Therefore, the said transaction cannot be taken as a comparable sale, more particularly in view of the sale transactions which took place in Udumalpuram village itself during the three years period prior to the date of issuance of Notification in respect of the lands in question, which is taken as basis for fixation of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. It may also be relevant to state here that the very same Court has not given credence to Ex.B2 dated 18.08.2005 while dealing with Reference under Section 18 in O.P.No.260 of 2009 arising out of the fixation of market value for the lands acquired under Award No.3 of 2008. The Common Order passed in the said O.P., as noted above, was marked as Ex.A7. The Common Order passed in the said O.P., as noted above, was marked as Ex.A7. However, while fixing / enhancing the market value in respect of the lands under the present acquisition, the Reference Court had not taken the same into account by observing as follows: “29. On perusal of Exs.A2 to A7, it is observed that the lands covered under Exs.A2 to A7 are agricultural lands, and they are not having house site potentiality. Admittedly, in Ex.A1, P.W.1 has not mentioned the nature of the land. Hence, Exs.A1 to A7 are not in support of the evidence of P.W.1.” 34. Be that as it may. Exs.B3 and B4 are the communications of the Requisition Department with regard to depositing of amount in respect of the lands, which are proposed for acquisition for South Central Railway. As seen from Ex.B3, it would appear that an amount of Rs.1,56,23,800/- has been released through four Demand Drafts towards the land acquisition charges for Ac.24.31 cents of land situated in Udumalpuram village for construction of new Railway line track on permanent diversion. A reading of Ex.B4 would go to show that the lands sought to be acquired consists of private patta lands as also Government lands, but the details are not clear. While taking into account, the said communications and recording its conclusions with reference to house site potentiality, gradual price increase of land and observing that Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 lands are at a distance of 2 furlongs from the acquired land and Ex.B1 and B2 lands are within the municipal limits of Nandyal, the Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.15 lakhs per acre on the premise that “it is not disputed.” 35. Though the learned Reference Court is justified in its conclusions with reference to the potentiality of the acquired lands for development, in the considered opinion of this Court, fixation of compensation @ Rs.15 lakhs per acre is whimsical and without supporting material. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the fixation of market value @ Rs.15 lakhs per acre is not tenable, merits acceptance and the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court. 36. In the light of the above conclusions, this Court is required to fix the just and reasonable compensation in respect of the acquired lands. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the fixation of market value @ Rs.15 lakhs per acre is not tenable, merits acceptance and the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court. 36. In the light of the above conclusions, this Court is required to fix the just and reasonable compensation in respect of the acquired lands. Ex.A7- Common Order in O.P.No.260 of 2009 dated 22.02.2011 was in respect of the acquisition of lands pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification dated 06.03.2007 covering an extent of Ac.9.73 cents in various survey numbers of Moolasagaram and Udumalpurampalem villages for formation of diversion road and construction of high level bridge across the Kundu River. Whereas, in the present case, it was issued on 24.03.2007. The Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the acquisition of the said extent of land of Ac.9.73 cents, passed an Award No.3/2008 dated 20.02.2008 (Ex.A6) fixing the market value of the acquired lands therein at Rs.2,63,000/- per acre, whereas in the present case, Award dated 04.03.2008 was passed fixing the market value at Rs.15 lakhs per acre. The Reference Court in respect of the Award No.3/2008 (Ex.A6) dated 20.02.2008, enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,63,000/- to Rs.3,90,000/- per acre. As stated earlier, this Court by an order dated 03.10.2024 in L.A.A.S.No.681 of 2011 & batch enhanced the market price from Rs.3,90,000/- per acre to Rs.5,09,090/- per acre. 37. In respect of the acquisition of lands under Award No.3/2008 as also in respect of the subject matter lands vide Ex.A1, the Land Acquisition Officer, had fixed the market value @ Rs.2,63,000/- by relying on Serial No.64 of the sale statistics i.e., Document No.6406 dated 17.11.2005, wherein an extent of Ac.5.34 cents was sold @ Rs.14 lakhs which comes to Rs.2,62,172/- per acre. The said sale transaction is in respect of the very same village i.e., Udumalpuram village, which took place about 16 months prior to the acquisition of subject matter lands under Section 4 (1) Notification dated 24.03.2007. But, the evidence on record would go to show that the lands in question are situated in an area with high potentiality. Therefore, the lands under acquisition are likely to fetch more value, in view of its location adjacent to the Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, Auto Nagar, Industrial Estate and Venkateswarapuram colony, except the disadvantage of inundation in rainy season. But, the evidence on record would go to show that the lands in question are situated in an area with high potentiality. Therefore, the lands under acquisition are likely to fetch more value, in view of its location adjacent to the Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, Auto Nagar, Industrial Estate and Venkateswarapuram colony, except the disadvantage of inundation in rainy season. Despite the same, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants would be entitled to more compensation and not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that the compensation atleast @ Rs.3,90,000/- per acre as enhanced by the Reference Court in respect of the lands acquired under Award No.3/2008, is reasonable. 38. Coming to Ex.B4, out of the total extent of Ac.24.31 cents, an extent of Ac.9.77 cents appears to be Government lands and there is an ambiguity with regard to the ownership, though undisputedly the Railways deposited an amount of Rs.1,56,23,800/- as is evident from the contents of Ex.B3 dated 15.03.2007. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to take the same into consideration for the purpose of arriving at compensation in respect of the subject matter lands. If the said amount is taken into consideration, the value of the land works out to about Rs.6,42,690/- per acre. 39. In the present case, except Exs.B1 to B4 the evidentiary value of which is discussed above, there is no other material to arrive at just and reasonable compensation. However, as stated earlier, the market value of the lands @ Rs.2,63,000/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide Ex.A3-Award was enhanced to Rs.3,90,000/- per acre by the Reference Court vide Ex.A7- Order and the same on appeal in L.A.A.S.No.681 of 2011 & batch was fixed @ Rs.5,09,090/- per acre. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to take the said value into consideration arrived at on the basis of a sale transaction dated 20.11.2006 for Rs.5,60,000/- in respect of an extent of Ac.1.10 cents situated within the village limits of Udumulapuram and Moolasagaram. Though the contention regarding imposition of cuts / deductions in respect of the acquired lands was impressive at the first blush, going by evidence on record that the lands in question have high growth potentiality and in very close proximity to the already well developed area, this Court is of the view that the same merits no acceptance. Point is answered accordingly. 40. Point is answered accordingly. 40. In the result, the order under challenge is modified by fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition @ Rs.5,09,090/- per acre instead of Rs.15,00,000/- per acre as awarded by the Reference Court. Rest of the order dated 18.11.2011 stands confirmed. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in part . No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.