THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No.746 of 2002 And A.S.Nos.28 & 29 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals and Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. These three appeals, under Section 58 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition-cum-LOC, Unit SRSP, are directed against the common order dated 27.12.1999 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, in O.P.Nos.30 of 1999, 59 of 1999 and 58 of 1999, which were heard and disposed of along with O.P.No.57 of 1998. Various extents of land belonging to the respondents/claimants situated in Hampoli and Sunari Village, Kubeer Mandal of Adilabad District, were acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of silt arresting tank across local stream near Hampoli and Sonari villages. Draft notification and draft declaration under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act were published in the A.P. Gazette on 4.03.1996 and 6.03.1996 respectively, followed by publication of substance of notification in the villages and in Vartha Telugu Daily on 18.03.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying due formalities and after considering the sale transactions pertaining to the years 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, passed Award No.13/96-97, dated 15.03.1997 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.20,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. However, since advance possession of the land was taken on 1.03.1987 i.e., prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of Act, the claimants were not paid any additional market value under Section 23(1- A) of the Act. On receipt of compensation under protest, the claimants filed their applications on 21.04.1987 under Section 18 of the Act to refer the matter to the civil Court for re-determination of compensation. On reference being made, in all the four O.Ps. they appeared before the reference Court and filed their claim statements claiming compensation of Rs.70,000/- per acre. Since a memo was filed by the claimants in the aforesaid O.Ps., all the O.Ps were clubbed together and the evidence recorded in O.P.No.57 of 1998 was ordered to be treated as the evidence in all other O.Ps. To prove the market value of the acquired land, on behalf of the referring officer PW.1 was examined and Ex.1-copy of the award was marked. On behalf of the claimants, the fourth claimant in O.P.No.58 of 1998 was examined as RW.1, the fifth claimant in O.P.No.30 of 1999 was examined as RW.2 and two more witnesses were examined as RWs.3 and 4 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 sale deeds were marked. RW.1 deposed that an extent of Acs.8.38, 6.15, 8.04, 6.24 guntas of land covered by O.P.No.58/98, 57/98, 59/98 and 30/1999 were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for formation of silt arresting tank. In the said land they used to raise chillies and cotton and get net income of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per acre, per year. RW.2 corroborated the evidence of RW.1 with regard to the crops raised by them and the income derived from the land acquired. RW.3, the vendor of Ex.B.1-document deposed that he sold the land situated in S.No.81/E, which is immediate adjacent to the acquired lands where the tank is formed, to one Bhagya on 6.12.1995 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- per are. He also corroborated that he used to get an actual income of Rs.25,000/- per acre from the said land. RW.4 deposed that he purchased Ac.0.27 guntas of land in S.No.81 situated at Hampoli village in 1995 through document No.1721/95 dated 13.12.1995 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- per acre, under Ex.B.2. He also deposed that the land purchased by him and the acquired lands are one and the same in fertility and nature, and they used to get net income of Rs.25,000/- per acre. The lower Court after taking into consideration the above documents and the award, held that the land value mentioned at serial No.7 of the award in Hampoli village @ Rs.30,074/- per acre, appears to be genuine as per the sale deeds under Ex.B.1 and B.2 since at that time the lands of Hampoli village in the same survey number were sold @ Rs.30,000/- per acre, and accordingly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30,000/- per acre. The lower Court also awarded 12% additional market value from the date of notification till the date of award; 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation; and interest @ 9% p.a. on enhanced compensation for one year i.e. from 1.03.1987 and thereafter, @ 15% p.a., till the payment is made. We do not see any error of principle of law by the reference Court fixing the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre, warranting interference. Further, though an appeal in A.S.(SR).No.68563 of 2001 is preferred against the common order passed in O.P.No.57 of 1998, the same was returned by the Registry on 28.12.2001 with certain objections. On re-submission, again the appeal was returned on 7.10.2003. The Government in proceedings No.C/467/97, dated 10.07.2009 deposited a sum of Rs.3,36,664/- towards the decretal amount payable to the claimants in O.P.No.57 of 1998 through a cheque bearing No.807137 dated 10.07.2009. Even otherwise, the enhancement made by the lower Court is only 50% more than what the Land Acquisition Officer awarded, the present appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer are liable to be dismissed. Though the claimants are not entitled to interest from the date of taking possession, but under Ex.A.1, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded interest @ 9% p.a., on the compensation fixed by him, for a period of one year i.e., from 1.03.1987 to 28.02.1988, and thereafter, @ 15% p.a., from 1.03.1988 to till the date of payment. As per Section 25 of the Act the amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. But in view of the embargo under Section 25 of the Act, the award of interest from the date of taking possession by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be interfered with. The remedy, if any, for the Land Acquisition Officer is only to challenge the award under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Lower Court also in its award discussed that the claimants are deprived of the livelihood, since they were prevented from raising crops and having regard to the fact that the Government accepted and paid the decretal amount accepting the award of interest from the date of notification on the enhanced compensation also, we do not see any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed confirming the award passed by the lower Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (A. Gopal Reddy, J.) ___________________ (B. Chandra Kumar, J.) 7th October, 2009 Js.