Kumar Rajaratnam, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, in LAC No. 54 of 1997.
2. The facts very briefly are.--
The property in question related to 15 acres 25 guntas and 17 acres 26 guntas in Sy. Nos. 138 and 125 of Ramadurga Village, Devadurga Taluk of Raichur District. The preliminary notification is dated 4-2-1993. The purpose of acquisition was for the construction of balancing reservoir. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per acre. The matter went before the Reference Court for enhancement of compensation. The learned Civil Judge granted Rs. 52,500/- per acre. This was done on the basis of Ex. P. 4, award made in LAC Nos. 151 to 159 of 1997.
3. Aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation, the State is before us.
4. An affidavit has been filed by the claimant-respondent stating that the land was acquired by the State for construction of balancing reservoir. Vast land had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose. It was also stated in the affidavit that the preliminary notification was dated 4-2-1993. One of the claimants Smt. Chennamma, W/o. late Doddayya, whose land was acquired in Sy. No. 123/A of the same village viz., Ramadurga Village also was awarded a compensation of Rs. 52,500/- per acre. It was further submitted that the land of Smt. Chennamma related to LAC No. 159 of 1997. It is also submitted by the Counsel for the respondents that LAC No. 159 of 1997 had become final and execution proceedings were taken. It was also submitted that other lands acquired for the same purpose with respect to the same 4(1) notification had culminated in the order of the Civil udge giving compensation at the rate of Rs. 52,500/-. The land undoubtedly is adjacent to the land of Smt. Chennamma, which is the subject-matter of this miscellaneous first appeal. It is also admitted that the State has not filed an appeal against the Reference Court order with respect to Smt. Chennamma in LAC No. 159 of 1997. In fact, it is further submitted that the said Smt. Chennamma (claimant) had filed EP No. 453 of 1999 before the Civil Court, Raichur and the State has deposited the same and the said amount has been paid to the claimant Smt. Chennamma. The certified copy of the E.P. No. 453 of 1999 is filed herewith.
5. We do not think that any distinction can be made with espect to LAC No. 159 of 1997 and the present LAC No. 54, which is before us. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
6. This proposition has been reported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahadev v. The Assistant Commissioner/Land Acquisition. Officer, : (2002)9SCC487 . The Supreme Court at paragraph 9 pronounced as
follows.--
'9. Having heard the Counsels for the parties and perused the records, we do not think the High Court was justified in interfering with the award of the Reference Court. The High Court ought to have seen that the acquiring authority viz., the Government has accepted the award in regard to similar lands, all of which were sought to be acquired under the same notification. The High Court has not come to conclusion that the lands of the appellant are in any way inferior to the lands of those owners in whose favour the Reference Court award has become final. In such a situation, we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by the High Court mainly because of the fact that the acquiring authority itself has accepted the award of the Reference Court. The appeal before the High Court was not based on any question of law applicable to the peculiar facts of the appeal before it. It was also an appeal on facts on the basis of which the learned District Judge confirmed the award. If the very same evidence was acceptable to the acquiring authority in regard to six other owners, we fail to understand why it should not be acceptable to the acquiring authority in regard to the appeal before us. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that it is not the case of the acquiring authority that the land of the appellant is, in any way, inferior to that of the other lands acquired under the same notification'.
(emphasis supplied)
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Union of India, : AIR1999SC317 , which has no application to the facts of this case.
8. What we are concerned in this case is that, first, with respect to same 4(1) notification, secondly, the identical nature of land with texture and character being the same and thirdly, both lands being next to each. (See Mahadev's case, supra)
9. The Government Advocate was not able to point out any difference between LAC No's. 159 and 54 of 1997 which is under appeal before us.
10. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court and for the reasons stated therein, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.