HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2184 OF 2000 DATED:29.04.2010 BETWEEN: The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Y.R.P.Unit-III, Peddapuram …Appellant and Kakarapalli Suryanarayana & Others …Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2184 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram made in O.P.No.178 of 1990, dated 30.12.1999 whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge answered the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in favour of the claimants-respondents enhancing the compensation from Rs.18,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs.50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. An extent of Acs.5-74 cents of land situated in J.Annavaram village belonging to the claimants-respondents herein was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Yeleru Reservoir Project by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 24.8.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry passed award on 28.02.1990 fixing the market value for the acquired land at Rs.18,000/- per acre. When there were disputes in respect of the ownership of the acquired property, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Act and the same was registered as O.P.No.178 of 1990. Subsequently, as per orders passed in I.A.No.135 of 1992, dated 03.03.1993, the reference was converted from Section 31(2) of the Act to Section 18 of the Act and the claimants filed their claim statement for enhancement of the compensation. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the claimant, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The reference court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence observed that, Ex.R2-copy of judgment of this Court in A.S.No.2913 of 1996 and batch, dated 17.03.1998 shows that for the lands of J.Annavaram village Government acquired the land of one Palivela Lakshmi for the very same purpose this Court fixed the market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land and at Rs.55,000/- per acre for wet land. Ex.R.3-copy of judgment in A.S.No.2733 of 1996 and batch, dated 26.02.1998 shows that for the lands in Lakkavaram village, which is the adjacent village of J. Annavaram village, the Government acquired the land belonging to one Thotakura Nookalamma and others for the very same purpose, this Court fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre irrespective of classification of the land. Ex.R1-registration extract of sale deed, dated 23.01.1986 shows that in Marriveedu village, which is an adjoining village of J.Annavaram, one Pericherla Jagannadharaju sold an extent of Ac.0- 88 cents of dry land for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Taking into consideration the proximity of the notification, and since the lands acquired are contiguous to the lands covered by the judgment passed by this Court as referred to above, the reference Court rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.50,000/- per acre, which in our considered view, is the true market value prevailing as on the date of issuance of notification. It is brought to our notice that the trial court denied the interest on Solatium and additional market value, but restricted the interest only on the enhanced compensation. It is now fairly well settled that even without filing any cross- objections, the claimants can seek interest on Solatium and additional market value, which forms part of the compensation. We accordingly award interest at 9% per annum from the date of notification i.e., 24.08.1987 for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the payment is made, on the enhanced compensation including additional market value and 30% Solatium as per the law laid down in Sunder v. Union of India {AIR 2001 SC 3516}. With the above observation, the appeal suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J. APRIL 18, 2010 Lmv.