(L. Narasimha Reddy, J.)

These two appeals are filed against the judgments and decrees in O.P.Nos.139 and 141 of 1986, dated 27th and 28th February, 2002, respectively, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. The facts that gave rise to the filing of both the appeals are similar. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

The Government intended to provide house sites to the weaker sections in Gadwal town. Initially, a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) dated 02-03-1985 was issued, proposing to acquire Ac.3.85 cents of land in Sy.No.1013 of Gadwal Revenue Village, owned by the respondents in A.S.No.1618 of 2002. Within two month thereafter, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 24-04-1985, covering Ac.4.55 cents of land in Sy.No.937 of the same village, owned by the respondents, in A.S.No.1805 of 2002. While in O.P.No.139 of 1986, the award was passed on 17-02-1986, fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre, in O.P.No.141 of 1986, the award was passed on 10-01-1986, fixing the same market value. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents in both the appeals sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. References were taken up by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, at Gadwal, as O.P.Nos.139 and 141 of 1986. Through separate orders dated 27th and 28th of February, 2002, respectively, the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.16/- per sq.yard. Hence, these two appeals.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals submits that the respondents relied upon the judgment and decree in O.P.No.2218 of 1984, whereunder the compensation was enhanced by the trial Court to Rs.20/- per sq.yard, and the fact that the said compensation was reduced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to Rs.20,000/- per acre, ought to have been taken into account by the trial Court. He contends that once the respondents pleaded that their cases are akin to those, covered by the decree in O.P.No.2218 of 1984, filed as Ex.A-1 in O.P.No.139 of 1986, the trial Court ought not to have taken into account, any other evidence, including the sale deed, Ex.A-2, dated 04-12-1984. He submits that solely on the basis that in Ex.A-2 an extent of 480 sq.yards of land was sold, at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.yard, the compensation in the instant case, was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to nearly Rs.77,000/- per acre.

4. Sri S. Venkateswar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though it is a fact that the decree in O.P.No.2218 of 1984, marked as Ex.A-1, was modified, and the compensation in respect of a land, covered by that O.P., was reduced to Rs.20,000/-, the fact remains that in the immediate neighbourhood, a plot of Rs.480 sq.yards was sold, one year before the acquisition, at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.yard. Learned counsel contends that the acquisition itself was for providing house sites in an area abutting the town, which is a Municipality. Learned counsel further submits that the acquired land is part of Gadwal Revenue Village, which is a town, that recorded development long back.

5. For all practical purposes, the lands covered by both the appeals were for the same purpose and identical in all respects, though separate notifications were issued and separate awards were passed. The trial Court framed the following points in both the OPs.

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the LAO., in the award Ex.B-1? If so, to what extent?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for the benefits provided under Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68/84?

3. Whether the claimants are entitled at the rate of square yard or acres basis?

4. Whether the claimants are entitled for costs incurred in the proceedings?

6. In O.P No.139 of 1986, on behalf of the respondents, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of