ZTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2587 OF 2000 Dated. 31-12-2010 Between: K.Narayana Reddy …Appellant Vs. Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2587 OF 2000 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.394 of 1982 on the file of the court of Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in not satisfying with the market value granted by the learned District Judge. Some lands were acquired at Patancheru for establishment of the industrial development area and the draft notification was given on 2-09-1976 and possession of the lands was taken on different dates and an award enquiry was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value at Rs.6,500/- per acre. An extent of Ac.2.17 guntas of land belonging to the present appellant who is the petitioner in O.P.No.394 of 1982 was acquired along with some other petitioners’ land. Along with this O.P, two other O.Ps were clubbed together and all the claimants stated that the land acquired is very fertile and crop yielding and there are very high potentialities and they are entitled to compensation @ Rs.40/- per square yard. After the reference was made to the court on behalf of the claimants PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A- 4. On behalf of the referring officer Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. After considering the material evidence on record, the learned Additional District Judge fixed the market value @ Rs.11,000/- per acre. In not satisfying with that compensation, the claimant in O.P.No.394 of 1982 has filed the present appeal for further enhancement of the market value @ Rs.25,000/- per acre. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Additional District Judge is real and correct? (2) To what relief? POINTS: The appellant did not go into the box but the claimant in the connected O.P.No.392 of 1982 was examined as PW.1. The learned Additional District Judge found that the sale deeds under Exs.A-1 and A-2 relied on by the claimant relate to very small extent of land and there is also a difference about the comparability and therefore did not take into consideration those sale transactions. However, the learned Additional District Judge found that the acquired lands are nearer to the village and there is a potentiality. The learned judge also found that Land Acquisition Officer did not take into consideration the potentialities, value of the land inherent in it and also took into consideration the fact that the lands are useful for locating industries and taking into consideration the decree in O.P.No.156 of 1978 under Ex.B-1 relating to acquisition in the same area where under the court had fixed the market value at Rs.10,000/-, the learned Judge has accordingly fixed the market value @ Rs.11,000/- per acre. The appellants could not show as to how the arrival of the market value by the lower court is incorrect. Evidently, some repeated contentions were raised about the potentiality and reliance is placed on Exs.A-1 to A-3, which was rejected by the lower court for valid reasons. Merely because there is a potentiality of the lands it cannot be a fanciful determination of the market value. The appellant being in a position of the plaintiff has to establish the same. Therefore, we do not find any error in arriving at the market value by the learned District Judge. But, however, as could be seen from the judgment, the learned Additional District Judge has granted solatium and also interest on the solatium from the date of taking possession, which was 04-01-1977 and award was passed on 09-05-1977 and the notification was given in 1976. The judgment in this case was delivered on 14-05-1984. The claimants are not granted all the statutory benefits including the additional market value of 12% and the interest thereon. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits and interest thereon. The learned Additional District Judge also granted solatium @ 15% but the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 ( for short “the Act”) have got retrospective effect and will be applied to the cases pending before the court. As it has got retrospective effect as per the decision reported in K.Kamala Jammanivaru (died) rep. By L.Rs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer ([1]), the benefits apply to awards made after 30-04-1982 and before 24-09-1984 also and to further appeals made to the High Court and Supreme Court arising from such awards. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled to the benefits of solatium at 30% and additional market value with all statutory benefits. Accordingly, with the above modification the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31-12-2010 TSNR [1] 1985 (1) ALT 383