THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14899 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner herein are the residents of Kothapalli Village, hamlet of Kommuru village, Nandalur Mandal, Kadapa District. It is not in dispute that Kothapalli village is one of the villages which was submerged under Somasila project. Accordingly, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") were initiated and Award No.1/95-96 dated 20.10.1995 was passed determining the compensation payable to the land- owners/occupiers including the petitioners herein. Not being satisﬁed with the quantum of compensation awarded, some of the land-owners sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and, accordingly, L.A.O.P.No.94 of 1999 was registered and the same was disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet on 25.02.2006 enhancing the compensation to 80% over and above the market value ﬁxed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer. Though the petitioners could not seek such a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, basing on the Order in L.A.O.P.No.94 of 1999, they made applications on 15.04.2006 seeking re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. Having considered the same, the 3rd respondent has passed an Award dated 16.02.2008 re-determining the compensation on the basis of the Order dated 25.02.2006 in L.A.O.P.No.94 of 1999. However, the respondents while re-determining the compensation on par with the claimants in L.A.O.P.No.94 of 1999, failed to award interest on additional market value and solatium and also interest on the compensation from 20.10.1995, the date of Award till date at 9% p.a., for the ﬁrst year and at 15% per annum for the subsequent period. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an identical question was considered by this Court in W.P.No.13241 of 2008 which was disposed of on 2.07.2008 holding that the petitioners are entitled to interest in terms of the Award passed by the civil Court. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has not disputed the settled legal position. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 16.02.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent to the extent of interest awarded and holding that the petitioners are entitled to interest in terms of the Award dated 25.02.2006 in L.A.O.P.No.94 of 1999 on the ﬁle of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the order dated 16.02.2008 to the extent indicated above. No costs. 22.08.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14899 of 2008 Between: 1 Nukareddy Narasimha Reddy S/o. Penchal Reddy 2 Nukareddy Narayana Reddy S/o. Penchal Reddy 3 Bhuvana Pedda Chengal Reddy S/o. Gangi Reddy 4 Mallikharjuna Reddy S/o. Venkata Narasa Reddy 5 Choppa Govindaiah S/o. Venkata Swamy 6 N.Venkata Reddy S/o. Chinna Subbareddy 7 Pratiya Sarojamma W/o. Subba Ramaiah 8 Chukka Ramaiah S/o. Yanadi 9 Chukka Gunnaiah S/o. Gangulaiah 10 Kommuri Lakshmi Devi W/o. Venkata Ramana 11 Mithikayala Yanadaiah S/o. Penchlaiah 12 Mithikayala Rajamma W/o. Subbarayudu 13 Thunti Atchamma W/o. Subbaiah 14 Chundu Narasimhulu Naidu S/o. Gopal Naidu 15 Thummala Venkataiah 16 Beduru Ramulamma W/o. China Pullaiah 17 Ega Lakshamma W/o. Jayarami Reddy 18 Modem Gangamma W/o. Pullaiah 19 K.Venkata Subbaiah S/o. Subbaiah 20 Chalamala Yella Reddy S/o. Lakshmi Reddy 21 Singana Pullaiah S/o. Seshaiah 22 P.Chandra Mohan Naidu S/o. Lakshumaiah Naidu 23 P.Jayamma W/o. Venkata Narasa Reddy 24 Siddavatam Siddamma W/o. Narasimhulu 25 N. Ramanaiah S/o. Rasaiah 26 Thalisetty Sabha Rathnam S/o. Sreeramulu 27 Thalisetty Sudhakar S/o. Krishna Murthy 28 Podamekala Penchalaiah S/o. Musalaiah 29 T. Ammannamma W/o. Krishnamurthy 30 Vakati Mallaiah S/o. Penchalaiah 31 S. Amruthamma W/o. Sreenivasulu 32 T. Venkata Narasaiah S/o. Narasimhulu 33 Konduru Subhadra D/o. Kommuru Salamma 34 K.Venkata Ramana S/o. Erukalaiah 35 Mithikayala Jayanna S/o. Narasimhulu 36 Konduru Sibhadra D/o. Kommuru Salamma 37 Mithikayala Venkata Subbaiah S/o. Chinnaiah 38 Konda Rama Krishna Reddy S/o. Venkata Sesha Reddy 39 Chintakayala Venkataiah S/o. Venkata Subbaiah 40 C. Mahalakshumma W/o. Pedda Narasappa Naidu All are Residents of Kothapalli, H/o. Kommuru Village, Nandalur Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Govt. of A.P., rep. by The Principal Secretary, Department of irrigation and CAD, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Spl. Collector, Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi(GNSS) Project, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 The Spl. Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmaus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not re-determining the compensation on par with the claimants under judgement and decree in LAOP No.94 of 1999, dated 25.2.2006 on the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, discriminatory, and contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to award interest on additional market value and solatium and also interest on the compensation from 20.10.1995 to till date at 9% per annum for the ﬁrst year and at 15% per annum for the subsequent period and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: