IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 2151 of 1999 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner:M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 2151 OF 1999 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.1998 directing the petitioners to refund the alleged excess amount paid to them towards compensation in respect of O.P.125 of 1988 and batch on the file of the Sub-Court, Gadwal, and the consequential attachment orders passed thereupon the present writ petition is filed. An extent of Ac.34.35 cents of land in Sy.Nos.841, 842, 844 and 848 at Gadwal belonging to the petitioners herein was acquired for the purpose of extending Agricultural Market Yard at Gadwal. Petitioners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Civil Court, the reference was numbered as O.P.Nos.120,121, 122 and 125 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gadwal and all the references were disposed of by the Civil Court which enhanced the market value of the land to Rs.65/- per square yard in respect of Category –I lands and Rs.60/- per sq. yard in respect of Category II lands. While Category-I lands were of an extent of Ac.13-00, the remaining extent of Ac.21.35 guntas were included in Category-II. Aggrieved by the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Gadwal, the R.D.O. preferred A.S.No.435 of 1995 and batch to which the Agricultural Market Committee got itself impleaded as a party respondent. During the pendency of proceedings before this Court, interim orders were passed directing the 1st respondent herein, (appellant in the appeals), to deposit 50% of the enhanced amount together with all statutory benefits and the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the said amount. Since a substantial extent of land acquired fell under Category II for which Rs.60/- per square yard was fixed by the Civil Court, the 1st respondent, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, had deposited Rs.30/- per square yard. The Appeals were finally disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court and the judgment of the Civil Court was modified fixing the market value at Rs.31/- per square yard in respect of the entire extent of land covered under both categories with all statutory benefits. The S.L.P. preferred thereagainst was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners received notices under the Recovery Revenue Act calling upon them to refund the excess paid to them pursuant to the interim orders of this Court. While several contentions are raised in the writ petition, Sri N.V.Sumanth, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would restrict his submission only on the question of payment of interest on solatium. Learned Counsel would draw attention of this Court to the calculation memo to submit that, in computing the amount alleged to have been paid to the petitioners herein pursuant to the orders in appeal, the respondents had failed to take into account the interest payable on solatium and as a result an amount, far in excess of what was liable to be refunded, was in fact mentioned in the calculation memo. Learned Counsel would rely on Sunder v. Union of India in this regard. Heard the Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Sunder1, held that interest under Sections 34 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was liable to paid even on solatium. Reference in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents to an earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court and a judgment of the Supreme Court is misplaced in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder1. The respondents shall, therefore, recalculate the amount recoverable from the petitioners after giving them credit towards their entitlement of interest on solatium. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________ 13-8-2008 asp