( 1 ) ALL these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment though the Court below has disposed of in four batches.

( 2 ) IN A. S. No. 909/83, notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act, 1898 was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated may 13, 1974, acquiring certain extents of lands for establishment of nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals and Godavari Fertilizers Limited. Similar notifications under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act, were published in other appeals also. Initially, Ac. 955-00 are sought to be acquired but in the declaration under Section 6, they confined to acquisition of Ac. 648-72 cents only. The lands arc situated in Suryaraopeta and Vakalapudi villages. Group I lands are situated in Ramayyapefa channel Ayacut and were under wet cultiviation. For these lands, the claimants have claimed at different rates : but now in the appeals, they confined to the market value ranging between Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 8,000/-per acre. The Land Acquisition officer determined the marret value at Rs. 1600/- per acre. Dissatisfied therewith they sought for reference under Section 18. The Civil Court did not enhance the market value. Equally with regard to Group II lands, which are non-ayacut lands but cultivated under the ayacut, the claimants claimed the same amount, but the Land Acquisition Officer granted at rs. 2 750/-per acre ; on reference under Section 18, the civil court did not make any enhancement ; Group III lands consist of dry lands in which dry crops viz. , ground-nuts, causarina, etc. are raised ; They also laid the same claim but the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the market value at rs. 800/- per acre and the Civil Court did not enhance it. Group IV lands are classified as low-lying land and submergeable with sea water and they arc not fit for cultivation ; accordingly they claimed at Rs. 6,000/-per acre but the Land Acquisition Officer has determined the market value at Rs. 400/- per acre. The Civil Court did not enhance the market value. Thus, the claimants have filed these appeals.

( 3 ) THOUGH in the O Ps. several documents have been marked as different exhibits, since the lands are the same and they are situated contiguous, possessed of the same potentialities, I propose to dispose all of them by evidence on record though recorded in four batches.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants generally contended that in the Inspection Report of the learned Subordinate judge he himself noticed various advantageous features which would be referred to later and it shows that the lands arc possessed of potential value for being used for building purposes and in many of the lands, cultivation was actually being carried on : they arc even lands, the sale-deeds,exs. A-I dated-December 26, 1973; ex. A-2 dated February 3, 1976 ; Ex. A-3 dated November 5, 1973 ; Ex. A-4 dt. July 9, 1973 Ex. A-5 dt. July 12, 1973, Ex. A-10 dated July 12, 1973; Ex. A-11 (It. October 3, 1973 ; Ex. A-40 dated September 11, 1974, etc. would show that the lands arc capable of fetching the market value ranging between Rs. 3000/-, to Rs. 9. 000/-, therefore, the Court below has committed grievous error in not enhancing the market value, flu Land Acquistion Officer has accepted ex. B-28 sale-deed dated May 9, 1973 which fetched at the rate of Rs. 1. 575/- per acre and he increased 25% of the value thereof but that would not reflect the correct market value; accordingly the Court below has committed grievous error in not placing reliance on the documentary evidence. It is also further contended that the oral evidence do demonstrate that the lands arc being cultivated with wet and commercial crops though there exists no regular feeding ayacut ; therefore they are much more valuable than what has been claimed by the claimants. It is further contended that though there are more number of trees in the lands, the Court below has not correctly counted the existing number of trees ; they made only marginal increase wi