C.V.RAMULU, J. - (1.) A.S. Nos.2228 to 2230 of 2004 are filed by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (beneficiary), while A.S.Nos.2316,2317 and 3123 of 2004 are filed by the claimants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') challenging the common Award and Decrees dated 8-12-2003 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pedapalli in O.P. Nos.247 of 1999, 316 of 1999 and 164 of 2001.
(2.) An extent of Acs.693.1 1/2 gts of land out of a total extent of Ac.970.09 gts situate at Lingapur Village, Ramagundam Mandal of Karimnagar District, acquired for Open Cast Mine of Medipalli is the subject-matter of the present appeals. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was gazetted on 4-2-1989. By an Award dated 27-3-1991, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 12,200/- per acre, Rs.2,84,000/- for the seven wells (approximately Rs.32,000/- for each well), Rs.77.60 ps per Sendhi tree, Rs.96.50 per Toddy tree, Rs.200/- per Tamarind tree, Rs.150/- per Thumma tree and Rs.50/- per Burugu tree. The claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of proper market value. Common evidence was let in and a common Award was passed in all the three OPs. Before the learned Senior Civil Judge, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.l to 5 were examined and Exs.Al to A15 were marked and for the respondents, R.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs.Bl to B19 were marked and Ex.Cl - Report of the Advocate Commissioner was also marked. After appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.12,200/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre for the lands. Similarly, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.75,000/- per well, Rs.150/- per Sendhi tree, Rs.175/- per Toddy tree, Rs.270/- per Tamarind tree, Rs.200/- per Thumma tree and Rs.100/- per Burugu tree .
(3.) In these cases, a peculiar situation arose. The lands, which were covered by very same notification were subject-matter of O.P.No.22 of 1997, which attained finality in the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (CC) Nos.4301-4302 of 2002, which were dismissed on 8-7-2002 by the following order: "Delay condoned. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we see no justification to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The special leave petitions are dismissed. Needless to point out if there are any other cases for acquisition of lands, the same will have to be considered on their own individual merits and materials places in such cases." Though the O.P.Nos.247 of 1999, 316 of 1999 and 164 of 2001, out of which the present appeals emanated, were pending at that time, the disposal of the above Special Leave Petitions by the Apex Court and the observations made therein were not brought to the notice of the Reference Court. Thus, the Court below proceeded on the basis of the earlier judgment in O.P.No.22 of 1997 and the judgment in the appeals arose from that judgment i.e., A.S.Nos.686 and 922 of 2000. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant-beneficiary submitted that the entire evidence on record needs to be reappreciated for the purpose of fixing proper market value for the lands in question and proceeded on that basis. Heard: both sides. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are: 1. Whether the reference made under Section 12 of the Act to the Reference Court is barred by limitation ? 2. Whether the Reference Court was justified in relying upon Exs.Al to A4 sale deeds, under which small extents of lands were sold out, when a huge extent of Acs.692. 41 1/2 gts of land was acquired and whether the said documents were executed only to boost the value of the lands under acquisition ? 3. Whether the lands under acquisition\ are submergible lands and they have no value whatsoever? Point No.1:;