Challa Kodanda Ram, J.

1) The Appeal Nos.151 and 255 of 2007 have been filed by the Referring Officer and the Appeal Nos.321 and 350 of 2007 have been filed by the Claimants challenging the Common Order and Decree dated 24.01.2006 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, in O.P. Nos.55 and 56 of 2003. The impugned Order was passed on a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short “the Act”).

2) Since the judgment challenged in all the appeals is one and same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the appellants in L.A.A.S. Nos.321 and 350 of 2007 herein are referred to as appellants, and the appellant in L.A.A.S. Nos.151 and 255 of 2007 herein is referred to as respondent.

3) The appellants were the owners of the land, an extent of Ac.0-20 cents each, situated in Sy.Nos.113/2A2B and 113/3A of Sunkesula Village. The same was acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of approach road from Sunkesula Naguladinne road to Thungabadra Barrage by issuing a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 24.01.2003, which was finally published on 28.01.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value at the rate of Rs.95,000/- per acre. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, on claimants’ applications matters were referred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kunrool and the cases were numbered as L.A.O.P. Nos.55 and 56 of 2003.

4) On behalf of the claimants, the claimant in L.A.O.P. No.56 of 2003 was examined as R.W.1 and two others were examined as R.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.4. On behalf of the Referring Officer, the Land Acquisition Officer himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2, besides Exs.X.1 to X.4 were marked.

5) The Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the acquired land was situated in a commercial locality in fixing the value of the land. It is further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record, which clinchingly proved that the land in the vicinity was sold at Rs.6,000/- per cent in 2002 itself and further submitted that as the acquired land has commercial potentiality and it fetches not less than Rs.10,000/- per cent.

6) On the other hand the learned Government Pleader would submit that the trial Court erred in enhancing the compensation amount for Ac.0-20 cents from Rs.19,000/-to Rs.41,560/- by relying on Ex.B.3-Regsitered Sale Deed dt.03.04.2001. Further submitted that the appellants have not discharged their burden with respect to proving the market value of the acquired lands as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.

7) The learned Judge of the trial Court after an elaborate enquiry had taken into consideration of Ex.B.3 Registered Sale Deed, dated 03.04.2001 and enhanced the compensation from Rs.95,000/- to Rs.2,07,811/- per acre with all statutory benefits.

8) As seen from the evidence of P.W.1-Referring Officer, who deposed that his predecessor in office after proper enquiry passed Award Nos.1 to 6 of 1998, dated 30.03.1998 and Award No.1 of 1999, dated 08.02.1999, by fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.85,000/- and Rs.95,000/-per acre respectively, and subsequently the lands covered in Award No.2 of 2003, dated 02.03.2003 with respect to the lands covered in Sy.No.113/2A2B were acquired, and after his discrete enquiries and since there is no water facility to the acquired lands, he fixed the market value at Rs.95,000/- per acre, which reflects the true market value as on the date of notification.

9) Whereas, it is the evidence of R.W.1-Claimant in O.P.No.56 of 2003 that the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.95,0