JUDGMENT : (Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.) Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri J.Vekateshwara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Warangal, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 07.04.2017 passed in O.P.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court’). 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer-I, SRSP, Stages-I & II, Division-3, Thorrur, the subject lands totally admeasuring Acs.3.16 guntas in Sy.Nos.471, 474, 41 and 131 situated in the limits of Veeraram Village of Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District, were acquired for excavation of 14L of DBM-60 from KM 0.000 to 7.225 on KC under SRSP, Stage-II; that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 04.08.2006; that Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 05.08.2006; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.E/230/06, dated 13.08.2009, granting compensation @ Rs.50/- per square yard for ID lands and @ Rs.9/- per square yard for dry lands. 4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Reference Court. 5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/ claimants, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. 6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, treated both categories of acquired land, i.e., ID and dry lands, as one category and enhanced the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.330/- per square yard for both categories of land. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. 6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, treated both categories of acquired land, i.e., ID and dry lands, as one category and enhanced the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.330/- per square yard for both categories of land. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court erred in granting compensation for the acquired lands on yardage basis instead of on acreage basis; that the Reference Court erred in treating both the ID and dry lands as one category and fixing the same compensation for both types of lands; that the Reference Court erred in fixing the market value of the acquired lands based on Ex.P-7-sale deed and further giving escalation @ 10% per annum and ultimately, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.330/- per square yard, which is highly exorbitant and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and on finding that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer does not commensurate to the potentiality of the subject acquired lands, and by taking into consideration the sale transaction under Ex.A-7 and rightly giving escalation @ 10% per annum for one year, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 9. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 10. In support of their claim for enhancement of market value of the acquired lands fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants have got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 before the Reference Court. The Reference Court on consideration of the said exhibits has observed that the highest and lowest value reflected in Exs.P-1 to P-4 and P-6 are Rs.2,200/- and Rs.355/- per square yard, respectively, and the average of the two values comes to Rs.1,275/- per square yard. The Reference Court on consideration of the said exhibits has observed that the highest and lowest value reflected in Exs.P-1 to P-4 and P-6 are Rs.2,200/- and Rs.355/- per square yard, respectively, and the average of the two values comes to Rs.1,275/- per square yard. However, the Reference Court has further observed that since the claimants have relied upon Ex.P-7-Award, whereunder in respect of lands acquired in Maripeda Village for excavation of SRSP Canal, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed Rs.550/- and Rs.500/- per square yard for Category-I & II lands, respectively, the same was taken into consideration and after making necessary deductions and escalation to the said market value, fixed the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.330/- per square yard. 11. Now, in the present Appeal, in the light of the evidence adduced before the Reference Court and the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, the main issue that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the Reference Court has fixed fair and reasonable market value for the acquired lands. 12. Admittedly, Ex.P-7 is the Award, dated 28.02.2006, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is in respect of lands acquired in Maripeda Village and further, the purpose of acquisition of lands in the present case and the lands covered under Ex.P-7 is one and the same i.e., for excavation of SRSP Canal DBM-60. Furthermore, admittedly, Veeraram Village, where the subject acquired lands are situated, is in Maripeda Mandal and that Veeraram Village is at a distance of about one kilometer away from Maripeda Mandal, as stated by P.W-2 in his cross-examination. 13. In addition to the above, it is also apt to note that while referring to sale deeds of the relevant period of three years prior to the date of 4(1) Notification, for the purpose of assessing and fixing the market value of the acquired lands, the Land Acquisition Officer has categorically stated that as no reasonable and considerable sale transactions pertaining to Veeraram Village are available, he has ascertained and referred to as many as 108 sale transactions of Maripeda Village. 14. Therefore, from the above, without any hesitation the market value of the acquired lands at Maripeda as reflected in Ex.P-7-Award can be taken as guiding factor for assessing the market value of the subject acquired lands at Veeraram Village. 15. 14. Therefore, from the above, without any hesitation the market value of the acquired lands at Maripeda as reflected in Ex.P-7-Award can be taken as guiding factor for assessing the market value of the subject acquired lands at Veeraram Village. 15. Though the Reference Court has taken into consideration Ex.P-7-Award, it has deducted 30% of the market value reflected therein towards developmental charges, on the ground that the subject acquired lands are agricultural lands and the lands covered under Ex.P-7-Award are house sites. In fact, this observation of the Reference Court is contrary to the evidence on record. R.W-1 who was examined on behalf of the Referring Officer has categorically admitted as follows:- “It is true that since the lands acquired pertaining to the awardees were house sites, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation on yard basis at the rate of Rs.50/- per square yard.” 16. Further, R.W-1 has categorically admitted as follows:- “The land covering Sy.No.471 and 474 were given compensation on yard basis and the land covering Sy.No.41 and 131 were awarded on gunta basis. It is true that the lands covering all the survey numbers mentioned above are adjacent to each other.” 17. In view of the above categorical admissions of R.W-1, it is clear that the acquired lands in all the Survey numbers are house sites and are adjacent to each other. 18. Hence, on the analogy of purpose of acquisition and the nature of lands between the subject acquired lands and the acquired lands covered under Ex.P-7-Award, the claimants are entitled for compensation on par with the market value reflected in Ex.P-7- Award. But, the Reference Court has committed grave error in observing that the subject acquired lands are agricultural lands and accordingly, it also went wrong in deducting 30% of market value reflected in Ex.P-7-Award for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands. 19. Further, in the case on hand, Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 04.08.2006. Ex.P-7-Award is dated 28.02.2006. Thus, it is clear that the notification in the present case was issued hardly six months after Ex.P-7-Award. 19. Further, in the case on hand, Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 04.08.2006. Ex.P-7-Award is dated 28.02.2006. Thus, it is clear that the notification in the present case was issued hardly six months after Ex.P-7-Award. In the light of the said fact, the escalation of 10% given by the Reference Court by observing that there is time gap of one year from the date of Award-Ex.P-7 and the date of 4(1) notification in the present case, is contrary to record and is thus not sustainable. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the Reference Court failed to consider the evidence placed before it in proper perspective and thus, erroneously assessed and fixed the market value of the acquired lands. 21. Therefore, the market value of the subject acquired lands needs to be re-assessed. It is apposite to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir , [2017(4)SCC 717] and Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and another , [ 2010 (5) SCC 747 ] , wherein it is held that when the nature/quality and purpose of acquisition of the subject acquired lands are similar and identical to the lands acquired in the adjacent village, it would not be justifiable or rather it is unfair to discriminate in granting distinct compensation for the acquired lands. 22. In the present case, it is relevant to note that the lands covered under Ex.P-7-Award and the subject acquired lands are acquired for the same purpose, i.e., excavation of canal under SRSP, and further, Ex.P-7-Award was passed for the lands acquired in Maripeda Mandal and the subject acquired lands in Veeraram Village are, in fact, in Maripeda Mandal. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh (cited supra) and Bal Ram (cited supra) are squarely applicable to the present case. 23. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh (cited supra) and Bal Ram (cited supra) are squarely applicable to the present case. 23. However, it is to be noted that the lands covered under Ex.P-7-Award are situated in Maripeda Mandal Head quarters and the subject acquired lands are situated in Villages, that too, at a distance of about one kilometer from Maripeda Mandal Head Quarters, therefore, the potentiality and consequently, the market value of the house sites situated in both the cases differs and in any event, the market value of house sites situated in Villages will be lesser than the market value of house sites situated at Mandal Head quarters. Therefore, it is appropriate to deduct 20% of Rs.500/-, i.e., the value reflected in Ex.P-7-Award, which comes to Rs.400/- per square yard. 24. This Court does not lost sight of the fact that the present Appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the enhancement made by the Reference Court, therefore, though the market value of the subject acquired lands is assessed @ Rs.400/- per square yard, the claimants are not entitled to any relief/enhancement in the Appeal. 25. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this Appeal is dismissed. 26. As a sequel, interim order dated 15.03.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 stands vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.