The main legal point established in the judgment is that uniform rate of compensation can be justified for acquired lands that are similarly situated and acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose, and that the assessment of compensation involves a certain degree of guesswork.

( 1 ) SINCE all these miscellaneous second appeals involve common questions of law and facts, and also as they arise out of the common judgments and Awards dated 29. 1. 2002, they are conveniently dealt with together.

( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate Sri A. G. Shivanna takes notice for the respondents-claimants and he is permitted to file power within three weeks from today.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Government Advocate for the appellant- lao as well as the learned Advocate for the respondents in all these appeals and carefully perused the entire case papers including the impugned common Judgments and Awards made by the First appellate Court, with their assistance.

( 4 ) THESE Miscellaneous Second Appeals filed by the Special LAO under Section 54 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act are directed against the common Judgments and awards made by the First Appellate court, whereby, it has enhanced the compensation payable for the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants of Rs. 11,500/- per acre, on the basis of the Judgments and awards made by the Courts in similar other cases, wherein, the similar nature of lands of adjoining villages acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose were awarded compensation at Rs. 11,500/- per acre. Thus, it was found by the First Appellate Court that the acquired lands of the respondents - claimants and the lands involved in the other cases of adjoining villages acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose, being similarly situated are entitled to the same compensation and hence, awarded the uniform rate of compensation for all the acquired lands under the same notification. It is this finding of the First Appellate Court, which is now sought to be challenged by the appellant - LAO by preferring these miscellaneous Second Appeals.

( 5 ) THE enhancement of compensation made by the First Appellate court is sought to be challenged by the Appellant -LAO on the grounds that the Court below has erred in law in holding that in view of certain amount of compensation having been awarded in respect of certain other lands of nearby villages and covered under the same notification covering the respondents village and lands and that the same having been confirmed by this Court, the respondents also being entitled to the same amount of compensation, without any further consideration. According to the appellant-LAO, this reasoning of the First Appellate Court is highly presumptuous and results in conferring largesse on the respondents while completely throwing overboard the established principles and the basis on which compensation is awarded and reconsidered for enhancement in given cases. It is also contended that the Court below has failed to see that there can be no presumption that all lands covered under the same notification and of the same village are entitled to the same amount of compensation, in the absence of material evidence and a rational basis with due regard to topography, availability of arable land in a given survey number, source of water, yield and other factors. It is also contended that the reference to case nos. in which a sum of Rs. 11,500/- per acre was awarded was hardly a reason for enhancing compensation without reference to the other essential ingredients. Mainly, on these grounds, the appellant - LAO seeks to challenge the enhancement made by the First Appellate Court.

( 6 ) IT has to be stated at the outset that in a second appeal under section 54 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the questions which may not be raised in an appeal under Section 100 of CPC, cannot be raised. The Second Appeal can be entertained by this Court within the limits prescribed by Section 100 of CPC and it is not open to the parties to demand reappraisal of the evidence by this Court on the ground that the First Appellate Court has erred in its view of the evidence. It is not correct to say that Section 54 (2) of the Land acquisition Act, which recognises second app