HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.No.122 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G.Shankar) The Government has acquired vast extent of lands in Krishnavaram village and other surrounding villages for laying Yeleru Reservoir Channel. An award was passed in 1992 in connection with the lands in Krishnavaram village. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.28,500/- per acre for the wet land, Rs.17,000/- per acre for dry land cultivated with wet crops and Rs.10,000/- per acre for other lands. The claimants were aggrieved by the same and preferred O.Ps 49 to 52, 54 to 56, 58 to 63, 65 and 66 of 1993 before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Peddapuram under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned trial Judge disposed of all these references through common order on 30.12.2000. After recording evidence of as many as 12 witnesses who are the claimants in various claims, relying upon Ex.R.1 which is the certified copy of decree in A.S.No.2913 of 1996 on the file of this Court, the learned Senior Civil Judge determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet land and Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in O.P.No.63 of 1993, Government preferred the present appeal. Heard Sri S.Md.Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals. Respondents were served with notice. However, no one appeared for the respondents. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the valuation adopted by the reference Court was unjust and improper and that the valuation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer needs to be accepted. The reference Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.2913 of 1996. That was in relation to acquisition of lands for the purpose of Yeleru Reservoir Channel. The lands in that case are situate in neighbouring villages to the areas where the lands in the present case are situate. The reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge was perfectly justified as his findings were on the basis of the judgment of this Court not only in A.S.No.2913 of 1996 but also on the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.2052 of 1998 relating to the acquisition of lands in J.Annavaram, Ramanayyapeta, Lakkavaram and Marriveedu villages. The lands of the respondent situate in Krishnavaram are admittedly similar in nature in all respects compared to the lands covered by A.S.Nos.2052 of 1998 and 2913 of 1996. Where the reference Court arrived at the market value of the acquired property on the strength of the earlier decisions of this Court, the finding of the learned reference Judge cannot be found fault with. The determination of the market value by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram is perfectly justified and deserves to be confirmed. A point of clarification is regarding the interest to which the claimant is entitled to. The Supreme Court took the view that a claimant in a land acquisition case would not be entitled to interest on additional market value and solatium. On the strength of the view of the Supreme Court, the learned trial Judge did not award interest on the additional market value and solatium awarded by him to the respondent herein. However, subsequently, the Supreme Court held in Sunder v Union of India[1] that a claimant would be entitled to interest over additional market value and solatium also. It, therefore, is clarified that the claimant would be entitled to interest over the additional market value and solatium apart from interest over the market value of the acquired property. So far as the main appeal is concerned, for the reasons already set out, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is consequently dismissed. No costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 24th December, 2010. PNV [1] 2001(5) ALD 136