JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri Dharanai Kumar B, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri T. Vishnu Teja, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appellants in both the appeals are the plaintiffs, namely, Vempalkli Khasim Saheb & Gundluru Peeramma. Their respective suits O.S.Nos.14 and 47 of 2010 against the same set of defendants, the Government of Andhra Pradesh through its District Collector, Kadapa and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa have been dismissed by the common judgment and decree dated 09.11.2012 by the learned Court of 1^st Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

3. In O.S.No.14 of 2010 its plaintiffs’ predecessors were allotted/issued DKT Patta No.15/1411 dated 16.02.2002 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, C.K.Dinne of the plaint schedule land in Sy.No.846/1. Similarly, in O.S.No.47 of 2010 its plaintiffs’ predecessors was also granted DKT Patta No.16/1411 dated 16.02.2002 by the Mandal Revenue Officer for the plaint schedule land in Sy.No.846/2. It was the plaintiffs’ case that they were cultivating the lands and developed it and irrigated through a bore-well at Sy.No.846/2. They succeeded from their respective predecessors, the original assignees and also obtained pattadar passbook and were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. The Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled the assignment of pattas and issued orders of resumption of land vide Ref.No.B/108/2002, dated 30.06.2004 to provide housing site pattas to the weaker sections. The plaintiffs filed appeal against the Resumption Order dated 30.06.2004 before the Joint Collector (RDO). The plaintiffs filed W.P.No.9989 of 2007, in which the Order to maintain status quo was passed on 09.05.2007. Thereafter, finally, the Joint Collector upheld the plea of the plaintiffs and modified the resumption orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer and directed to resume the land subject to payment of ex gratia i.e., the market value payable under Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short ‘LA Act’) with 30% solatium on the market value and future interest. The modified Order of resumption was also challenged in W.P.No.1409 of 2008, in which the order of the Joint Collector was upheld vide judgment dated 24.01.2008 with the clarification that the assignees were entitled to claim compensation as per the provisions of the LA Act, i.e., the compensation along with solatium and additional compensation and interest besides ex gratia payable in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, Revenue (Assign-I) Department, dated 23.12.1993. The plaintiffs, again raising the grievance that the compensation was not granted in terms of the Order passed in W.P.No.1409 of 2008, filed another W.P.No.8009 of 2008, which was dismissed by this Court vide Judgment dated 21.07.2009, however, observing that in case of any grievance, the plaintiffs have to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction as to re-compensation. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the respective aforesaid two suits.

4. The plaintiffs’ case was that the market value of the suit land fixed by the 2^nd defendant in the suit, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa was very low and it is against the spirit of G.O.Ms.Nos.1307 and 1391. Their case was that the suit lands were situated in urban area having more open market value than the amount fixed by the 2^nd defendant. The value of the adjacent lands nearby the suit lands was said to be Rs.300/- per square yard as per the basic value registered entries, so, the plaintiffs claimed compensation in respect of the suit lands at the rate of Rs.600/- per square yard and accordingly prayed for grant of decree in their favour.

5. The defendants in the suit/respondents 1 and 2 herein filed written statement. Their plea was that the reasonable amount had already been paid to the plaintiffs in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. The plaintiffs’ W.P.No.8009 of 2008 had already been dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, however,